Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Corby (Northants) and District Water Bill (by Order),

Manchester Extension Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Taunton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL.

TRAMWAY AND FERRY FARES, RIO DE JANEIRO.

Major COLFOX: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received a reply to the despatch sent on 17th November to His Majesty's Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro, in which he asked for a report on the progress made by the commission investigating the tramway and ferry fares of the Leopoldina Terminal and Cantareira companies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir. I am informed that the Commission of Inquiry was composed of two independent auditors and two officials of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Two separate reports have been presented to the Secretary of Public Works of the Government of that State. I understand that the position at present is that the matter is in the hands of the Consultative Council, a body which may be regarded as being an advisory committee to the Interventor.

BRITISH INVESTORS.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he will suggest to the Brazilian authorities that they should themselves impose an export sur-duty upon Brazilian coffee and fruit so that the State of Rio de Janeiro and other provincial Brazilian authorities may, with the proceeds of the duty, be able to meet their obligations now in default to British investors?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that a decree fixing new conditions for the service of all the Brazilian Federal, State, and Municipal foreign loans was signed by the Provisional President yesterday. I understand that full details will be published here either this evening or to-morrow morning. In the circumstances my hon. Friend will appreciate that no useful purpose would be served by any representations to the Brazilian Government pending full consideration of the new scheme.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is this one of the Powers that defaulted in regard to meeting its liabilities to this country, which is opposite from that which exists in regard to Russia?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the decree of which we have received notice is a decree under the terms of which they are preparing to meet their obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached by the League of Nations as to what considerations shall govern the future administration of mandated territories in the event of any Power holding a mandate leaving the League of Nations; and, if not, whether he will take steps to press for a decision on this matter at an early date?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

AUSTRO-GERMAN RELATIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in Austria, in view of the German reply to the Austrian Note concerning anti-Austrian propaganda by the German Government; and whether it remains the policy of the British Government to
maintain the independence of Austria, in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add to the statement made to the House last night by my hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. MANDER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing to the Council of the League of Nations, in connection with the Austro-German dispute, that a frontier commission should be constituted for the purpose of keeping a check on illegal movements across the frontier and for supplying information to the League on the local situation?

Sir J. SIMON: If the Council of the League of Nations is called upon to consider this matter, my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

RUSSIA (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES' SUPPLIES).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement on the question of food supplies to His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow, and its bearing on the proposed Anglo-Russian temporary trade agreement?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I should like first to make plain that the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement is not being delayed or held up by this question at all. The position is that inasmuch as the Soviet Government seek to secure in their trade agreements with other countries diplomatic privileges for their trade representatives, and in view of the fact that certain restrictions have been imposed on the purchase and importation of supplies by His Majesty's Representatives in the Soviet Union, His Majesty's Government requested the Soviet Government to give an assurance that necessary supplies would continue to be available to His Majesty's Representatives at reasonable prices, and that such supplies as they found it necessary to import would not be subject to import duties. The Soviet Government having declined to give such an assurance, and as it is essential for the continuance of satisfactory relations that proper treatment
should be accorded to His Majesty's Representatives in the Soviet Union, His Majesty's Government have made their position clear to the Soviet Government in a formal note.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the goods required under these privileges have exceeded reasonable limits of consumption by the Embassy staff?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know where the hon. Member gets that suggestion, but it is without any foundation whatever.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it the case that the British Embassy is asking for conditions which are more favourable to us than is granted to any other Embassy in Russia, and is it not the case that there has been no discrimination against the British Embassy in Russia?

Sir J. SIMON: I am only concerned to see that His Majesty's Representatives in a foreign capital get proper treatment, and that is the object of the formal note addressed to the Soviet Government. There is no truth in the suggestion that the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement is being held up because of this matter.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that our representatives abroad, our Ambassadors and Ministers, have the privilege of receiving necessary supplies for their Embassies and Legations without the imposition of import duties?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not a fact that at the present time members of the Diplomatic Service taking up appointments in Moscow are required to take six months' supply of tinned food with them?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot answer the last supplementary question; it may be so. What the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) said is in accordance with the ordinary practice.

ROYAL NAVY (CRUISERS).

Sir C. CAYZER: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as the provisions of the London Naval Treaty do not preclude this country from maintaining any cruisers in excess of the number of 50 during the treaty period, and in
view of the changed international situation since the treaty was ratified, he proposes to retain on the active list certain of the over-age cruisers as they are replaced by new construction?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): We have accepted all obligation under the London Naval Treaty to limit the total cruiser tonnage of the British Commonwealth of Nations on 31st December, 1936. Overage cruisers cannot be retained when they are replaced by new construction without exceeding this limit.

Sir C. CAYZER: In view of the fact that this House assented to the London Naval Treaty on two assumptions, that the world situation remained unchanged and that other countries would not increase their naval forces, and in view of the fact that those conditions are not fulfilled, can the right hon. Gentleman say that our naval strength will be reviewed before the next conference, so that when the conference is held we can put forward a demand for naval strength in accordance with the requirements of the Empire?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As the hon. Member knows, there is to be another Naval Conference in 1935, and all these points will be considered then.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUBBER RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House any information regarding the negotiations for rubber restriction?

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement in regard to the prospects of a rubber restriction scheme?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I understand that negotiations between the various interests are still proceeding, but that they have not reached a stage when a scheme can be submitted to the Governments concerned.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: Will the hon. Member see that no restrictions are agreed to until they are absolutely water-tight, and that the Governments taking part in such an arrangement guarantee that what they undertake they will be able to fulfil?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am certain that will be my right hon. Friend's intention.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CEYLON).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the various resolutions urging the Government to reconsider the Imperial Preference granted to Ceylon, any action along these lines is proposed?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The question of preferences between Ceylon and this country involves consideration of various matters, and I am afraid that it is not possible to make any further statement on the subject at present beyond that made in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) on the 31st of January.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: In view of the fact that we imported £8,126,000 worth of tea from Ceylon in 1933, will the Government consider making further representations in the matter?

Mr. HANNON: Has not the friendly arrangement with Ceylon gone on much too long? Is it not time that His Majesty's Government asserted itself in this matter?

Mr. MacDONALD: I can add nothing to what I have said, but I would point out that under the arrangement with Ceylon a large proportion of our imports into the island get a preference to-day.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: If this question were to be put down three months hence would the hon. Member then be able to give an answer?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Is the hon. Member aware that it is nearly two years since the Ottawa Conference; and also that I have asked four or five questions of a similar nature, and that each time the reply was that negotiations were proceeding. Surely there is a time limit in the matter.

PALESTINE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 45.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department
whether, in view of the increasing importance of trade with Palestine and the countries adjoining that mandated territory, he will consider the desirability of appointing a trade commissioner to the area with headquarters at Tel Aviv in view of the growing interest of merchants in the Near and Middle East in the Levant fairs organised in that city; and whether he will arrange for the commissioner to leave for his post before the commencement of the next, and enlarged, Levant fair of 1934?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. It has recently been decided to appoint a Commercial Agent for Palestine to reside at Haifa. He will visit Tel Aviv as occasion requires and it is being arranged that he shall arrive at his post before the commencement of the next Levant fair.

TEXTILE TRADES (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. HEPWORTH): 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the pending trade negotiations with Japan will affect not merely cotton and rayon goods but also woollen products?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) on 28th November.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the best thing to do would be to get the representatives of the woollen and worsted trades of this country and of Japan together immediately so that we could tackle this problem now?

Dr. BURGIN: I think we had better see how the existing conversations proceed before we enlarge their scope.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is it not the case that the existing conversations have nothing whatever to do with the woollen and worsted trade?

Dr. BURGIN: The whole point of my answer was that we had better see how the existing conversations proceed before we enlarge their scope?

KENYA (DENTAL SURGEONS).

Captain ELLISTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether as a result of his representations to the Government of Kenya, he has been able to secure for dental surgeons in that Colony the same exemption from annual registration fees as has been already conceded to medical men practising under the same ordinances?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Representations from the British Dental Association were communicated to the Governor of Kenya who points out that the decision to exclude medical practitioners from the scope of the Licensing Ordinance was taken because of the number of medically qualified men who, though retired from active work yet engage in a little practice in outlying districts for the benefit of their neighbours and derive little or no income therefrom. Similar circumstances do not exist in the case of dentists but any retired dentist who wishes to practise his profession in a small way is at liberty to apply for exemption from the annual licence. Correspondence on the subject is still proceeding.

Captain ELLISTON: Will my hon. Friend point out to the Kenya Government that this matter affects fewer than 20 dental surgeons who are placed in exactly the same difficulty in a new and scattered community as medical practitioners, and that they are entitled to fair treatment?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am certain that the authorities have taken that into account in arriving at their decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

IMMIGRATION.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at what rate immigrants have entered Palestine during the last three months?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: In November 3,903 immigrants entered Palestine. The returns for December and January are not yet available.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: What percentage of those were Jews?

Mr. MacDONALD: I cannot give the exact percentage, but practically the whole of them.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider taking steps to bring the laws governing labour conditions in Palestine more into conformity with those of this country?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Labour legislation covers a wide field, and it is not clear what particular aspect of the question the hon. Member has in mind. If, however, the hon. Member has any specific points in view, perhaps he will be good enough to communicate further with me.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that trade unionism is prohibited in all trades in Palestine and particularly on the railways? Will the hon. Member look into the matter?

Mr. LEVY: In virtue of that fact is not Palestine one of the most progressive countries in the world?

CYPRUS (MURDER OF M. TRIANTAFFILIDES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Cyprus has reported to him on the murder during January of M. Triantaffilides, one of the recently nominated members of the executive council of the island; and if there was any reason to believe that this crime was political in its nature?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative; but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that while investigations are still proceeding it would not be proper to express any opinion as to the motive of this crime.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Can the hon. Member assure the House that the widest and most searching inquiries are being pursued to sift this matter to the bottom?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes.

PROTECTORATES AND DEPENDENCIES (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the mui-tsai system under
which children exchange hands for financial considerations, is now known to be in operation in several territories under the protection and control of Great Britain, he can say in how many dependencies this system is known to be in being; and what is the total number of mui-tsai in the territories in question?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The mui-tsai system, as described in the hon. Member's question, is a Chinese custom of long standing which formerly existed in Hong Kong and was introduced by Chinese immigrants into certain other British Colonies and Protected States, namely the Straits Settlements, Malay States, Sarawak and North Borneo. It has now been abolished by legislation in all those territories. The introduction or acquisition of hew mui-tsai has been prohibited, and those who were formerly mui-tsai have been registered and are subject to inspection and supervision. Their status is now that of free, paid, domestic servants. I have no complete information at present of the number of former mui-tsai now registered, since in certain of the territories the registers were not closed until the end of 1933.

Mr. LUNN: Does the information of the hon. Member show whether the mui-tsai are being decreased or increased, in Hong Kong in particular?

Mr. MacDONALD: Very much decreased.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it that it is the policy of the Government to abolish this form of slavery within the British Empire?

Mr. MacDONALD: I must point out that this is not a system of slavery. These are girls who are registered and perfectly free, and paid as domestic servants. If they wish to leave the position in which they are facilities are granted for them to do so.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the evils of mui-tsai are not existing under another name, in the guise of adoption?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am satisfied that the system of registration and inspection is sufficient and is being worked in order to make impossible any continuance of the system of slavery as it existed before.

SOLOMON ISLANDS (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).

Mr. BERNAYS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason it has been decided to abolish the labour department in the protectorate of the Solomon Islands and consequently to remove the inspector of labour from his post; and what steps are being taken to secure proper supervision of the employment of the 4,000 native contract labourers employed upon the plantations of the protectorate?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The post of chief inspector of labourers has been abolished, but an officer of the Labour Department is being retained at Tulagi for departmental duties. The work of inspecting the plantations now rests with the Department of District Administration. The abolition of the post of chief inspector was recommended in 1930 by a local labour commission, partly for reasons of economy, and partly because inspections both by an officer of the Department of District Administration and by an officer of the Labour Department were not considered necessary. The recommendation to dispense with the post was supported by the Resident Commissioner and by the High Commissioner.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask whether the Colonial Office are supporting the deposition of the Labour Department in the Solomon Islands; the best department in the islands?

Mr. MacDONALD: ; This is a question of inspection, and as the answer shows that inspection is still being carried on by officers of the department.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

HULL-AMSTERDAM AIR SERVICE.

Brigadier-General NATION: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the present position regarding the proposed operation of a Dutch commercial air service between Hull and Amsterdam?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am informed that negotiations between the Royal Dutch Air Line (K.L.M.) and the Hull Corporation for the opening of such a service within the next few months have reached an advanced stage.

MASTER PILOTS' LICENCES.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if any master pilots' licences have been issued by the Air Ministry; and, if so, how many?

Sir P. SASSOON: No master pilots' certificates have hitherto been issued. Two awards have, however, just been approved and the certificates will be issued in a few days.

COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has yet received any recommendations from the Committee on Civil Aviation presided over by Lord Gorell; and, if not, when he anticipates that the committee will report?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir. In view of the importance and complexity of the subjects remitted to this committee, some further time must elapse before they are in a position to render a report. My hon. and gallant Friend will doubtless have noted that the original terms of reference to the committee have been considerably extended and that, in particular, they have been asked to investigate the questions of third party insurance for civil aircraft and Sunday flying. The committee has, however, devoted itself with much energy and assiduity to its tasks and, despite the extent of the ground to be covered, my Noble Friend hopes that he may receive their report by the early summer.

MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.

Mr. EVERARD: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the municipalities which have aerodromes under construction at this date?

Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that work on the construction of municipal aerodromes has already begun, or is likely to begin shortly, in the following cases: Birmingham, Brighton-Hove-Worthing (a joint aerodrome at Shoreham), Carlisle, Doncaster, Hastings, Leicester, Rochester, Southport and Walsall.

Mr. EVERARD: May I ask which work is actually in progress at these aerodromes?

Sir P. SASSOON: In most cases work is actually in progress.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the Under-Secretary make inquiries as to whether an aerodrome has been commenced at Sheffield?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have not the information about Sheffield, but I do not think any work has yet been started there.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are there no municipalities in Scotland which have started a municipal aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will send the hon. Member the information.

IMPERIAL AIR SERVICES (ITALIAN TERRITORY).

Mr. EVERARD: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any agreement has been made with the Italian Government for permission for Imperial Airways to run a flying service through Italian territory?

Mr. MANDER: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has any information to give with regard to the new British air route throughout Europe as a result of the agreement with Italy?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend, and with him the Director of Civil Aviation, were cordially received in Rome by the Italian Government, and I am glad to say that a provisional agreement has been reached which will enable Imperial Airways to operate their Indian and African air services over Italian territory by the most convenient routes.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Under-Secretary say when this service is likely to start?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should say in about three months time.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can my hon. Friend say how much time will be saved on the journey to Egypt by this arrangement?

Sir P. SASSOON: I cannot say definitely as the arrangements have not been completed.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING VOUCHERS).

Mr. EVERARD: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether facilities can be given to Members of Parliament
who fly to London, instead of using the railway vouchers, to use, free of charge, the most convenient Government aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not considered practicable to adopt the suggestion that free facilities in another sphere should be granted as a substitute for the free issue of railway vouchers.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there would be considerable saving to the Exchequer because in every case the cost of the railway voucher would be much more than the cost of travelling by aircraft?

Mr. HANNON: Has the Under-Secretary any idea of how many Members of this House have intimated their desire of flying to London?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is not flying by air much too safe?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that at least two people have been killed within the last few months and five within a period of a little more than the past year in Dudden Hill Lane, N.W.10; and what steps are being taken to improve the conditions of traffic in this place?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I regret that there have been a number of accidents in the street. I understand that the local authority have acquired property for widening the section adjacent to the junction with High Road, Willesden Green.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of persons killed and the number injured in road accidents in Great Britain during the eight years 1926 to 1933?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer contains a number of figures and is in tabular form, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the fact that there is to be a Debate this evening on
this subject, and that I have only asked for the totals in those years, could not some summary of these figures be given now?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand the hon. Member wishes to get the figures for each year from 1926 to 1933 inclusive.

Mr. FOOT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us the totals?

Sir J. GILMOUR: For the eight years from 1926 to 1933 inclusive, the total figures are 50,837 killed and 1,421,083 injured, or a grand total of 1,471,920 killed and injured.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A scandal.

Mr. MABANE: Do those figures include Northern Ireland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: These are road accidents in Great Britain. I do not think they include Northern Ireland.

Following is the answer:

Table showing the number of persons killed and injured during the eight years 1926 to 1933


Year.
Killed.
Injured.
Total.


1926
…
4,886
133,888
138,774


1927
…
5,329
148,575
153,904


1928
…
6,138
164,838
170,976


1929
…
6,696
170,917
177,613


1930
…
7,305
177,895
185,200


1931
…
6,691
202,119
208,810


1932
…
6,667
206,450
213,117


1933
…
7,125
216,401
223,526



Total
50,837
1,421,083
1,471,920

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. DOBBIE: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any steps have yet been taken by his Department to publish in consolidated form the regulations issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1930?

Mr. STANLEY: This matter is being actively pursued in my Department at the present time.

Mr. DOBBIE: Has any progress been made with its preparation since a question was asked on 7th November, 1932?

Mr. STANLEY: Some progress has been made, but the hon. Member will realise that the Department has had a lot of legislation during the last two
years and that there has therefore been constant pressure on the Department.

Mr. DOBBIE: Can the Minister of Transport give an assurance that there will be publication in the near future?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Captain SPENCER: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps his Department is taking to assist in the removal of railway level crossings which are a cause of danger or delay to road traffic?

Mr. STANLEY: Well-considered schemes for the elimination of level crossings are eligible for grant from the Road Fund, and I am always ready to receive applications from the responsible highway authorities for projects of this character.

BRIDGES (RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. L. SMITH: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps it is proposed to take during the current year with regard to the replacing of the remaining dangerous and inadequate bridges in Great Britain?

Mr. STANLEY: In connection with the provisions of Section 30 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, highway authorities are furnishing me with lists of the weak bridges in their areas in order of priority from the point of view of the need for strengthening or reconstructing. Highway authorities generally have been frequently informed of the readiness of my Department to make grants at the rate of 75 per cent. towards the cost of approved schemes for strengthening or reconstructing weak bridges in the ownership of railway and canal and similar undertakings.

Mr. SMITH: Does the Minister not agree that to push forward energetically with the replacement of these dangerous bridges would provide a very substantial contribution to the reduction of accidents on the roads?

Mr. STANLEY: I entirely agree that to push forward with the reconstruction of these bridges is desirable from the point of view of traffic on the roads, as well as the prevention of accidents.

Mr. LAWSON: Why have the local authorities not done this kind of thing before, seeing that there has been a very great need for this class of work to be carried out?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the local authority in his area.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 40 and 41.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware of the anxiety of those concerned with the operation of road rollers, steam ploughs and threshing engines, as to the inadequacy of many bridges on Class I roads in this country, and particularly as to the further restrictions which may be imposed on the use of these bridges under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933; and whether he can indicate the approximate amount which will be available during the present year for the strengthening and reconstruction of such bridges;

(2) if he can give an assurance that before the provisions of Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, are put into force, a sufficient number of adequate bridges on Class I roads, for the use of road rollers, threshing engines, steam ploughs, and other heavy agricultural vehicles will be provided, especially where no resonable alternative routes are available?

Mr. STANLEY: Bridge authorities have power at present, under the Locomotives Act, 1861, to prohibit the use of bridges by locomotives, and the powers to be conferred upon them by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, do not differ substantially from those which they exercised before the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. In any case, my hon. Friend will appreciate that a bridge is not made safe by merely abstaining from saying that it is unsafe, and it would not be reasonable to debar bridge authorities from putting up restrictive notices where they are justified. I cannot therefore give him the assurance for which he asks, but I anticipate that grants from the Road Fund will be available for any suitable proposals by highway authorities for the strengthening or reconstruction of weak bridges on important Class I roads.

Sir G. FOX: Is the Minister aware that for certain agricultural purposes these heavy agricultural engines are essential,
and will he give the matter the most careful and sympathetic consideration so that nothing is clone that will be detrimental to agriculture?

Mr. STANLEY: I cannot think that it would be to the benefit of agriculture that these heavy locomotives should fall through weak bridges. I shall certainly do everything I can to expedite the reconstruction of these essential bridges.

HUMBER (CROSS RIVER TRAFFIC).

Mr. L. SMITH: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention during the current year, to give any assistance towards reviving the scheme for a new modern bridge over or tunnel under the Humber; and if he can make any statement with regard to this matter?

Mr. STANLEY: It is for the highway authorities concerned to consider whether they desire to renew their efforts to obtain Parliamentary powers for this project, but, in the present financial circumstances, it is not possible for the Government to make a grant towards the cost.

Mr. SMITH: Can the Minister assist the provision of any more modern means of transport than the present antediluvian ferries which exist between South Yorkshire and the rapidly developing districts in the North of England?

Mr. STANLEY: I must ask my hon. Friend to put that question on the Paper.

Major CARVER: Is the Minister aware that the railway company which administers this ferry between Hull and Lincolnshire is about to build two new ferry steamers and also to improve the landing facilities on both sides, and will this not obviate the necessity for a bridge?

Mr. STANLEY: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his information.

HYDE PARK (VICTORIA GATE).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the London Traffic Advisory Committee have yet made any suggestions for improving the traffic situation at the Victoria Gate entrance to Hyde Park?

Mr. STANLEY: A number of suggestions for improving the traffic situation
at Victoria Gate to Hyde Park have been under consideration. As they would involve interference with the park, I am considering whether improvements could be made by re-routeing some of the traffic using the gate.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that it is quite impossible to improve Victoria Gate entrance without altering the entrance? The interference with traffic is a very serious matter, and would it not be a very great advantage if the matter was taken in hand?

Mr. STANLEY: I will consider whether it is not possible to improve it without altering the gate or the Park.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Mr. GUY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the right to print copies of the Highway Code is reserved to the Controller of the Stationery Office; whether the Code is still in print as a Government publication; and, if not, if he will state where copies can be obtained?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the supply of copies of the Highway Code became temporarily exhausted recently. A reprint has been made and copies are available at His Majesty's Stationery Office or can be obtained through any bookseller. The right to print copies of the Highway Code is reserved to the Controller of the Stationery Office.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: Will the Minister consider the advisability of allowing this Highway Code to be printed by anyone who wishes to do so in order that the information contained in it may be available to the public generally, in view of the position on the roads?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper?

MOTOR LICENCE DUTIES.

Mr. GUY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the total receipts from licence duties on motor vehicles from 1919 to the nearest convenient date; and also the total payments to local authorities out of the Road Fund during the said period?

Mr. STANLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The present system of motor licence duties came into force on the 1st January, 1921, but for comparative purposes it is convenient to take the figures of receipts and payments during completed financial years and the following are the figures for the years 1921–1922 to 1932–1933 inclusive:

£


Total receipts into the Exchequer from motor licence duties, including duties on horse-drawn vehicles, drivers' licences and fines
253,580,000


Payments to local authorities out of the Road Fund, including contributions from the Road Fund to the Block Grants under the Local Government Acts, refund of costs of collection, etc.
214,218,000

To reconcile these figures, account must be taken of the following receipts and payments on Road Fund Account and also of the Exdhequer's share of duties on vehicles in the horse-power and cycle classes retained under the Finance Act of 1926:

£


Receipts into Exchequer from licence duties, etc., as above
253,580,000


Balance on Road Fund Account at 31st March, 1921
13,301,000


Exchequer Advances to the Road Fund
7,210,000


Interest on Road Fund Investments, fees, etc.
4,263,000



£278,354,000

£


Payments to Local Authorities out of the Road Fund, as above
214,218,000


Amount transferred to the Exchequer from the Road Fund in 1926 and 1927
19,000,000


Exchequer share of horse-power and cycle classes
35,558,000


Administration expenses, etc.
2,895,000


Direct Works
5,607,000


Miscellaneous payments
691,000


Balance on Road Fund Account at 31st March, 1933
385,000



£278,354,000

SELBY TOLL BRIDGE.

Major CARVER: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport if any further developments have occurred with regard to the freeing of Selby Toll Bridge; and if he is prepared to make a substantial grant towards this object or towards any other scheme which would give a free bridge at this point between the West and East Ridings?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that a meeting of the Joint Bridges Committee of the West and East Riding County Councils was recently held to consider what action can best be taken with regard to the suggested new bridge at Selby, but I am not in a position to consider any question of grant until definite proposals are submitted by the highway authorities concerned.

Mr. PALING: Is the Minister aware that this sort of thing must have been going on for at least 25 years, and that they have not done anything yet? Will the Minister use his good offices to bring these people together and try to effect a compromise between the conflicting interests?

Mr. STANLEY: I have used my good offices, and I have brought them together.

MENAI BRIDGE (TOLLS).

Major OWEN: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large yearly profits accruing to the Ministry of Transport from the Menai Bridge Tolls, he will consider an immediate reduction in the contract rates and in the daily tolls chargeable to pedestrian, animal and vehicular traffic using this bridge; and whether he will state when it is proposed to start on the construction of a new bridge to connect Anglesey with the mainland?

Mr. STANLEY: Tolls for pedestrians using the Menai Bridge were abolished last year. I have recently received requests from local authorities in the district for abolition or reduction of the tolls for animals and vehicles using the bridge, and have them under consideration. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member recently, the profits from the tolls are being placed to a reserve against the liability of substantial renewals or reconstruction of this special structure at some future date, but I do not contemplate the
construction of a new bridge across the Menai Straits.

Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tolls on this bridge constitute an extra tax on the people using the bridge, that it is not uncommon to pay a contract price of £7 16s. a year for running a car daily over the bridge; and is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the bridge is the only means of communication between that island and the mainland?

Mr. STANLEY: I do not quite follow the question of the hon. and gallant Member. I have had certain applications for a reduction, and I am considering them.

Major OWEN: Will he consider those applications sympathetically, so that some relief may be given to the people using this bridge?

Mr. STANLEY: I consider every application with sympathy, but with judgment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Should not people be taxed if they go to a place like Anglesey?

COMPANIES ACT, 1929.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in the reconstruction of the Debenham group of companies, £9,000,000 capital is written off; whether he will move to fix liability upon those responsible for the over-capitalisation; and will he prepare an amendment to the Companies Act, 1929, to enable the Board of Trade on its own initiative to check and penalise the practice of company over-capitalisation resulting in loss to the investing public?

Dr. BURGIN: My attention has been called to the scheme of reconstruction of Debenhams, Limited, Debenhams Securities, Limited, and the Drapery Trust, Limited which was sanctioned by the court on 29th January. The Companies Act, 1929, already provides that the persons responsible shall be liable for loss sustained by subscribers for shares or debentures by reason of any untrue statements in a prospectus; and it does not appear to be desirable or expedient that the Board of Trade should be given statutory duties which would require them in effect to determine the permissible amount of capital of public companies.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to allow limited liability to be used as a shield so that over-capitalisation transactions involving a loss of £9,000,000 can be carried on under the protection of the Companies Act of 1929?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend does not propose to allow the Companies Act to be used as a shield, but he does not propose to do anything by legislation which will fetter the judgment of the commercial community of the City of London in determining what is the right amount of capital for their own business.

COAL INDUSTRY (EXPLOSION, FALLIN).

Mr. CAMPBELL KER: 48.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information regarding the accident which took place at Fallin on the 3rd February; and what inquiries are being made to ascertain the cause of the accident?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I very much regret that on the morning of 3rd February an explosion of firedamp in No. 4 Section of the Hartley Seam at Polmaise 3/4 Colliery, near Stirling, resulted in three men being killed, and a fourth seriously injured. The section had been abandoned, and the equipment was being dismantled and removed. The explosion occurred when the four men (one of them a deputy) were on their way inbye along the intake airway to remove a large fan which had been dismantled for the purpose. A thorough investigation by His Majesty's inspectors into the cause of the explosion was commenced the same morning and is still proceeding. The House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere sympathy with the relatives of the deceased men.

SCOTLAND (DRAINAGE AND HEATHER BURNING).

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any statement to make with regard to the allocation of public funds for drainage and heather burning, respectively, in Scotland?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Jamieson): The question of the amount of public funds to be allocated to land drainage in the forthcoming Estimates of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is at present under consideration. With regard to heather burning it is not anticipated that any additional expenditure will be required under the provisions of the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926.

ASSIZES (COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. TURTON: 50.
asked the Attorney-General how many commissioners of assize have been appointed to go on the north-eastern circuit during the last three years?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The number of commissioners of assize appointed to go on the north-eastern circuit during the past three years is as follows:

1931
…
…
…
1


1932
…
…
…
2


1933
…
…
…
Nil.

Mr. TURTON: 51.
asked the Attorney-General what is the average cost per day of a commissioner of assize on circuit; and whether that is less, and, if so, by how much, than the average cost per day of one of His Majesty's judges?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The cost per day of a commissioner of assize cannot be stated with precision as the rate of remuneration varies according to the number of days on which the commissioner is employed. During the year ending 31st July, 1933, the average cost per day of a commissioner was £11 17s. 3d. The average cost of a judge is £13 14s. 3d.

Mr. TURTON: In view of the very small difference between the cost of a commissioner and the cost of a judge will my hon. and learned Friend represent to the Government the need of appointing an additional judge, so as to ensure that we shall have two judges instead of one judge and one commissioner on this circuit?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is, of course, obvious that if Parliament sanctions the appointment of additional judges the necessity for appointing commissioners will be less.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are these judges the same men who refused to accept the decision of this Government as to a reduction of their wages?

52. Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is being felt in the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne at the decision not to send two of His Majesty's judges on the north-eastern circuit for the February assizes, and that, in view of the amount of work, it is in the interests of the litigants that the two courts should be presided over by two of His Majesty's judges; and whether he will take some steps to obviate the difficulties of the present position?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor regrets the necessity for a commissioner being sent on the north-eastern circuit, which however is unavoidable. He will give consideration to the representations made and to the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make urgent representations to the Lord Chancellor so that this very undesirable state of affairs may be brought to an end?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sure that my Noble Friend will consider the representation which the hon. Member has made?

Mr. TURTON: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that last year when a commissioner was again sent, urgent representations were made to the Lord Chancellor but with no effect?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: According to the information which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) there were no commissioners appointed in 1933.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 53.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the increasing practice of appointing a commissioner of assize on the North-Eastern circuit; and whether, in view of the necessity of maintaining the majesty of and respect for the law, he will take steps to provide that the necessity for such appointment shall only arise in exceptional circumstances?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I refer my hon. Friend to the figures which I have already quoted in reply to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) which do not bear out his suggestion that this practice is increasing. In answer to the second part of the question I refer to the answer which I have already given in reply to the hon. Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).

HOUSING (RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT).

Mr. JANNER: 54 and 55.
asked the Minister of Health (1) what county boroughs and county districts have published information in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933;

(2) the number of houses registered as decontrolled, in accordance with Section 2 (3) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, by 18th October, 1933, and subsequent to that date, respectively; and whether he will give those particulars for London, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The Act does not impose upon local authorities the obligation of making returns of the particulars referred to by the hon. Member and the information is accordingly not at the disposal of my right hon. Friend.

MONETARY POLICY.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee, with wide powers of reference, for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations on monetary policy?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): In the judgment of my right hon. Friend no useful purpose would be served by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. MASON: For the convenience of the representatives of the Treasury, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUPER-INTENDENT'S DISMISSAL).

Mr. CADOGAN (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether the Board set up to inquire into the appeal of a superintendent of the Metropolitan Police against his dismissal from the force has reported that the charges made against him were unfounded; and whether it is possible for him to make any statement?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Board of Inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers has found the charges to have been proved and is unable to recommend any revision of the sentence; and after considering the board's report, I have dismissed the appeal. My hon. Friend's question is no doubt based on a categorical statement which appeared last Wednesday in a London newspaper that the board had decided that the superintendent had been wrongfully dismissed and had stated in their report that the charges against him were unfounded. I am sure the House will share my view that it was on every ground deplorable that currency should have been given to this false statement.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask the name of that newspaper?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. It was the "Daily Express."

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the government of Ceylon, and move a Resolution.

RETIRING PENSIONS.

Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity for providing retiring pensions at 60 years of age, and move a Resolution.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMAMENTS.

Mr. BERNAYS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the danger inherent in the private manufacture of armaments, and move a Resolution.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mrs. COPELAND: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to slum clearance, and move a Resolution.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir John Sandeman Allen and Sir Park Goff; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Conant and Mr. Rhys.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Licensing (Standardisation of Hours) Bill): Mr. Hutchison, Lieut.-Colonel MacAndrew, Mrs. Tate, Miss Ward, and Viscount Wolmer; and had appointed in substitution: Major Carver, Major Leighton, Major Mills, Miss Pick-ford, and Mr. Rankin.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

INADEQUATE DEFENCES OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE FROM FOREIGN ATTACKS.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to move,
That this House, while appreciating the sincere efforts of His Majesty's Government to secure world-wide disarmament, considers that the growing disparity in armaments of the United Kingdom in relation to other Powers has brought about a situation which seriously imperils the security and independence of the British Commonwealth and endangers peace; in consequence, this House, though anxious to co-operate in a universal policy of peace and disarmament, either through the League of Nations or by direct international agreements, urges His Majesty's Government to pursue a course which will adequately safeguard our industrial, political, and national existence.
I feel that perhaps it is as well that the Disarmament Debate took place yesterday, and I am glad to note that the Foreign Secretary placed some time limit in which we should look to ourselves and see to our own preparedness. I am fully conscious of the gravity of this Motion, and I deprecate strongly—and as far as I am concerned it will not arise—any statement that would tend to embarrass His Majesty's Ministers in the very delicate negotiations that they are carrying out internationally, or any attempt to exaggerate our helplessness on this occasion—I do not think it would be in the public interest to do so—or, alternatively, to depict any of the horrors of war which we are all very desirous of avoiding to the best of our ability. But I submit that the soundest insurance against these horrors of war is an organised preparation against any attack on this country or on our Empire. The Motion will tend to show the peril in which we stand and to suggest to the Government that they should consider in a calm and dispassionate manner such measures as we have available for the security of this realm.
I do not propose to go into any details on the subject of existing armaments, but I wish to paint a broad picture of the situation as we find it to-day. We are all used to having in this country an Army relatively smaller than those of most of the first-class Powers, but that in itself would be in no way alarming if we could feel more assured that there was a sufficient body of partially trained
recruits standing behind that Army to be called on in case of emergency. As for the Navy, 30 or 40 years ago, before airships were ever heard of, our fathers considered that the security of our Empire, our trade routes, and our country could only be maintained on a basis of two keels to one. That, as we all know, has long since been abandoned, and we are now asked to consider from time to time the question of equality with the next largest Power, although our commitments and obligations to our own people have not materially lessened but have, in fact, increased, and the relative dangers to those interests which our Navy guards have increased at least tenfold. It is a curious commentary, looking back on those times, from 1880 to 1910 or thereabouts, when this country had a predominance on the sea and was the greatest nation in the world, that there was an obvious cessation of jealousies as between one country and another as we know them to-day, and there was the greatest development of industrial and civilising progress.
One would imagine that, with our weakness on the sea, we should obviously have a preponderating superiority in the air, but we all know that that is not a fact, and we are, unfortunately, at least the fourth, the fifth, or, as some say, the sixth on the list of Powers in the world in relative strength in the air, although these other nations that have a greater strength in the air than we have have not a tithe of our responsibilities. We all regard the personnel of our Royal Air Force with the greatest degree of admiration. They are second to none in the world, and I might say the same also of the machines which we produce. This country is the workshop for the manufacture of aircraft for half-a-dozen foreign countries. Can we calmly contemplate the possibility of sending these splendid airmen into the sky to be grossly outnumbered and shot down, through our own neglect, when these men are endeavouring to defend our homes?
In that connection I would like to make a few comments about our anti-aircraft defence. There are four brigades, one of which is only on paper. Two brigades are Territorial and one brigade is Regular Army, which, I understand, is in the highest state of efficiency, but the two Territorial brigades are greatly
undermanned and understaffed. In fact, there is in them less than 30 per cent. of the full complement of highly trained artillery officers. Two brigades, one Territorial and one Regular Army, are reserved for the defence of London, and the other Territorial brigade is for the defence of the rest of the United Kingdom. It would not take much stretch of the imagination to visualise the possibility of an attack at various points in the United Kingdom, in which case our defence from the anti-aircraft brigade would be practically negligible. In the event of any sustained attack with anything like the casualties which we are led to expect from what occurred in the last War, at the end of a very short period defence in that respect would cease to exist entirely. Reverting to the general position, to which I shall keep as much as possible, I would like to quote the Prime Minister, because we recognise that he would be the last to make any serious statement unless he had ample justification, knowing as we do his sincere pacifist outlook. In a broadcast speech a few weeks ago, he said:
We ourselves have disarmed to the very edge of safety.
With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I submit that if a serious statement like that had been made 30 years ago by a Prime Minister, it would have created such an outcry in the country that it would have resulted in the fall of the Government within a week. To-day, however, our national pride and inherent self-reliance seem to have been sapped by pacifist and fanatical propaganda disclosing the length to which a nation might drop into short-sighted sentiment and Micawberism, ignoring entirely the first law of nature—self-defence.
Another aspect of this situation is our depreciating value as an ally round the conference table in discussing agreements for mutual protection from attack. Our value as an ally two years ago was greater than it is to-day, and unless we do something it will be infinitely less in two years time than it is to-day. It has also a further repercussion in connection with something more material, namely, trade. It has an adverse effect on our trade negotiations, and consequently may have an effect on the amount of goods we can sell to foreign countries.
How much longer are we going to drift into trouble because we take undue notice of political doctrinaires and ignore the warnings of practical men that are given from time to time? Many in the House are old enough to remember the warnings which were given by the late Lord Roberts in the few years preceding the World War. In 1913 a responsible Member of the Liberal Government described Lord Roberts as being in a state of senile decay and a foolish old man. Within 12 months this country was fighting for its very existence. Hardly a month goes by when warnings are not given to us by responsible and practical people who should know. In October last a grave and momentous statement was made by a man who, for the last, two years of the War, had command of the Navy and kept the freedom of the seas for the passage of our Army and our food supplies—a man who has and had then the entire confidence of the country. I refer to Lord Beatty, who stated:
We were the only country that had carried out fully the policy of disarmament, and to an extent that made us incapable of playing the part of a great Power or of guaranteeing the safe passage of the sea to our ships.
I will not insult the intelligence of the House by asking which it would prefer to have, but will just ask hon. Members whether they would prefer to take the solemn warnings of a man who has our confidence and has nothing to gain by exaggerating the situation, or to be led astray by the theories of a small but vocal section of callow youths from some of our universities and irresponsible individuals who are making capital by exploiting the perils of our country. How long is this state of affairs to last? How long are we to suffer in this country from an inferiority complex in respect to national affairs? This situation should be reversed without any further delay, because we are running a risk every day that it exists. There is a steady decline towards helplessness. I say helplessness, because we are obviously vulnerable in hundreds of places. This does not necessarily call for panic or for any great increase in the cost of the personnel of our Army, but I think that a great deal can be effected by dealing with the Services, by making them more efficient and utilising the vast potential resources in this country which are not at present taken into consideration. I am not competent
to talk of the highly technical points connected with the Services or, what is even more vital, the necessity and desirability of co-operation between those Services, but I would like to suggest one or two possibilities.
We ought to make a great deal more attractive to the young manhood of this country an augmentation of all the Services, which will at least have the effect of raising the physical standard of our country. We have been inclined in the past to neglect our mercantile marine. That is a great factor, and we should give it a great deal more practical encouragement, which would enable us in so doing to develop the use of suitable ships for the protection of our trade routes in times of emergency. The air has been talked about a good deal in this House, and I will pass it by saying that we ought to develop a national air-mindedness and give a good deal more encouragement to our civil aviation.
These are points which I trust will be developed in greater detail in the Debate, but I would like to spend a few minutes in calling attention to the necessity of being prepared when the time arrives to produce the necessary armaments that will be required. In the late War it was two years before industry in this country was placed on a basis of being able to produce anything like our requirements. It is inconceivable, if and when an attack should come, that we should be given anything like two years in which to make preparations. It is in our own interests that the whole situation as to industrial mobilisation should be brought under consideration without delay, and complete plans be prepared which could be put into operation as soon as the occasion arises.
There is another matter of equally great importance in connection with defence, and that is public opinion. Public opinion killed the strike against this country in 1926, and it saved the country once again in the financial crisis of 1931. How much longer are we to let pacifist and defeatist propaganda go on in this country without adequate reply? Right from the dawn of history no empire has survived that has for any extended period developed a policy of self-effacement or lacked full appreciation of its own traditions and future. In the face of aggression from outside it is not only the fighting services
who are called into play but the whole nation, and a nation that is not prepared to face the greatest of all issues, its survival, will inevitably be submerged.
Apart from our unsurpassed traditions as a country and as a people, the British still have the greatest measure of personal freedom, the highest standard of social service and, I think, the highest conception of duty of any country in the world. But we must make allowance for a vast number of our younger population who have been brought up in an atmosphere of industrial depression and who, not unnaturally, have some measure of grievance against a country which cannot sustain them at the only standard they know, the standard of the few years of artificial affluence after the War. It is only to be expected that they will be absorbed in their own lack of opportunity, and have little conception of our traditions, and certainly very little, if any, knowledge of the industrial and social conditions, which are infinitely worse than ours, in every other country in the world. I think it is the duty of those of us who know and appreciate the grave situation to inform this vast strata of our population where it stands, and tell them of the great issues which are at stake at the present time. I maintain that it is part of the duty of the National Government to inform that section of the people, who should no longer be left exposed to ill-balanced fanatical propaganda and the exploiters of their own fanatical theories who exist in all grades of society. It is a definite charge on the Government, which they received by an overwhelming vote in 1931.
Next I would like to make some reference to the three Amendments on the Order Paper. In some ways I am not surprised to find them there. They fall into two categories. Those in one category show lack of policy, plead "wait and see"—a bubble which I thought was burst in 1923. With those in the other category it is an endeavour to stifle down the expression of opinion by this House of Commons, a sitting on the safety valve, because our House of Commons, whatever else may be said of it, is a sounding board of opinion in the country. There is no question, however trivial or however important, which does not stand a chance of being brought to the Floor of the House of Commons either by questions or by discussion during debates, and it seems
a very great pity that the House cannot form its own definite expression of opinion. From our mechanical and engineering knowledge we know that you can close down a safety valve for short periods with impunity, but with a boiler under steam and with the pressure growing the safety valve is not a safe seat for any length of time, because one of two things will happen—either the person on the safety valve will be blown off or there will be a terrific explosion in the whole plant.
I am very conscious that anything I have said this afternoon is not necessarily new to any hon. Members, but I do hope that I have been able to put things in a new light from the point of view of our own security, and I hope the Government will take some action. The average, normal British citizen is very apprehensive about the prestige of his country at the present time, and is equally desirous of avoiding attacks whether they come from the North, South, East or West, or from inside, and of being permitted to carry on his peaceful pursuits and maintain his friendships with all those who wish him well. But there is an uneasy feeling that we are not prepared for an emergency which may arise, and I think I am speaking for the great bulk of public opinion in this country when I say that people would feel happier—I will not put it higher than that—if they could see obvious manifestations of preparation and organisation in readiness for an emergency organisation such as only the Government itself can initiate. But that does not relieve each and every one of us in this House of a measure of responsibility to the people who sent us here, a measure of responsibility so grave that it concerns nothing less than the security of our country and the continuity of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I beg to second the Motion.
It may be argued that, in view of the discussion which took place yesterday and the statement of the Foreign Secretary, this Motion should not be pressed. I do not concur in that view. The political situation in Europe varies from day to day, but we cannot create new air squadrons or build battleships in the twinkling
of an eye to adjust ourselves exactly to the varying international situation. The defensive forces of this country should be dependent, not upon the high resounding phrases of foreign plenipotentiaries, but upon the actual resources which they have at their disposal. It is almost inevitable in a Debate such as this that suspicions should be aroused in the minds of those who hold hard-and-fast views on the subject of Disarmament. Suspicions are sown, party manoeuvrings take place and the subject of peace and Disarmament, which we all whole-heartedly and equally desire, enters into the political arena. No more dangerous course could be pursued. How can the Lord Privy Seal's statements at Geneva be met with sincerity if the party to which the President of the Disarmament Conference belongs openly regards the Government, of which the Minister is a member, as a war party? The memory of the East Fulham by-election is still fresh in our minds. It was hailed as a victory for peace. Suppose the other candidate had won, as he very well might have, would the Labour party have heralded that result as a mandate given by this country for war? If they truly desire peace I beg them to keep this issue of peace and war out of party politics. But if they wish to dub the Conservative party a war party I hope they will pay a little more attention to history than to the enthusiasm with which they make that accusation.
I ask my friends of the Labour party to answer this question: What war has ever been declared by the Conservative party? With the exception of a small military expedition against Abyssinia in 1867, under Lord Derby's administration, no offensive military operation has ever been initiated by the Conservative party, and if the statement that the Conservative party are a big armament party be true, then those heavy armaments have kept this country at peace.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the South African War?

Mr. WHITESIDE: That was declared by Kruger's ultimatum. I would ask the hon. Member to look at his history book afterwards.

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member must have forgotten that.

Mr. WHITESIDE: I ask the hon. Member to keep an open mind on the subject. If an increase in armaments in this country would lend stability to the character of Europe, are my hon. Friends opposite in favour of that addition taking place? Let us have an answer to that. We believe that such an increase would lend stability to the character of Europe, and it is for us to state and prove our case. Whether we desire it or no, the formation of a European international police force will be postponed for many years, and therefore we have got to maintain the balance of power in Europe, whether we like it or not. If we have not got adequate forces to sustain that balance of power in an unprejudiced way, then the influence which we bear in the European situation must wane. At the moment our policy is not unbiassed. It is dependent upon the force we have at our disposal.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), at the end of last year, urged the Government, through the League of Nations, to take violent steps against Japan, because he believed that the Japanese had made an outrageous attack upon China. But if we had wished to take that violent action, we could not have done so. The very first threat given, the first shot fired, would immediately have led to the loss of Hong Kong and of the Malay Peninsula. That would have jeopardised our Far Eastern trade, and resulted in unemployment and starvation in this country. The same fact applies to the Mediterranean. Malta is protected by one flying squadron supported by the "Glorious." Within an hour's flying of Malta there is Italy with 750 first-line aircraft. If we took strong action against Italy they could immediately cut off Our food supplies from coming through the Mediterranean. The same thing applies to Gibraltar. There we have no aircraft of any description, but across the water is France with her entire North African air force. That fact must influence the statements of the Foreign Secretary when he discusses the international situation with the Foreign Ministers of Italy and France. The whole of our foreign policy is thus painted with the brush of expediency. The hon. and
gallant Member for Lewes (Captain Loder) has put down an Amendment to this Motion, and I believe that that Amendment has the support of the Government. He ends his Amendment with these words:
that it is inexpedient to adopt any resolution which might prejudice the success of international discussions now proceedng.
Our Motion ends with these words:
urges His Majesty's Government to pursue a course which will adequately safeguard our industrial, political, and national existence.
Can the safeguarding of our industrial, political and national existence possibly jeopardise the international situation? Therefore I would ask the Lord President of the Council, who, I believe, is going to reply to this Debate, this question: Why should an increase in the armaments of other countries, particularly American naval armaments, be hailed as a constructive Measure to cure unemployment, but that if we put down a Motion to suggest that our forces are inadequate, it is stigmatised as an action liable to lead to war? Japan has increased her Navy by 37 per cent., the United States of America by 29 per cent. and Italy by 20 per cent. Why do not hon. Members opposite get up and say that it is those countries, and not us, who are reducing our Navy, that are making for the disruption of Europe? I am not one who believes that this country can cut herself off from the rest of the world as the owner of the "Daily Express" seems to imagine.
I believe that we have got to have some form of international agreement, but I doubt very much whether an international police force would be of any value. In my view, there is no possible connection between the functioning of an international police force and the functioning of a national police force in individual countries, and for this reason. The police forces of individual countries take action against either an individual or individuals who do or say anything which they think will lead to a breach of the peace; in other words, they take action before anything has happened. Are those who are in favour of setting up an international police force advocating that when Herr Hitler sends a note to Dr. Dolfuss which might lead to a breach of the peace, immediately that note is sent an international police force laden with lethal weapons and bombers should take action?
The mere suggestion of such a thing is the most bloodthirsty supposition which has been put forward in history. Therefore, this international police force, if it could function, would have to act after the event it should have prevented had taken place.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the national police force only functions after the event when a crime has been committed?

Mr. WHITESIDE: It functions afterwards, but if my hon. Friend was about to break into a house the police force would take action before he did so. I believe that if the peace of the world is to be maintained, some form of international agreement will have to be made, but I do not believe that it will be an agreement like that which is proposed at Geneva. When we listen to these debates on Disarmament, and we are told that armaments lead to war, we are not facing up to the real facts. Armaments never lead to war. The root causes of war are far deeper than that. One cause of war is the economic pressure which is brought to bear upon individual countries, and that economic pressure will be brought to bear under a Capitalist or Socialist State, because it is the result of innumerable individual acts. Each individual wants to get more than he gives, and no Socialist system could prevent a housewife trying to get a bargain at a cooperative store. When those individual actions are put together they form pressure upon a nation, and that nation seeks to place the burden on some other country. That is one of the reasons for war. The second reason is that man likes to live under the legal code to which he is accustomed. A German is perfectly willing to live in Alsace-Lorraine under German law, but not under French law.
Those are the causes of war, and they have nothing to do with armaments; but if the result of that pressure is to be delayed, some armed force will have to be formed. For the last quarter of a century one quarter of the world has lived in peace. Since the passing of the Statute of Westminster the British Empire has ceased to be, and a Commonwealth of Nations has been born—nations which are as different in colour, culture and creed as any in the world, and they possess a legal code which is more or
less similar; they have lived in peace, while Europe has been at war, and I believe the formation of a British Commonwealth force must precede the formation of a European police force. My hon. Friends may say that I am suggesting that Canada, Australia and ourselves should increase our armaments. I am not doing anything of the sort. The next war will be decided in the air, and military, civil and commercial pilots and machines will all be brought into it. I urge the Government, therefore, to make as many aerodromes as possible in this country, and to train as many pilots as possible in a civilian, not a military, capacity, because during times of peace those civilians will be earning wealth for the nation, while in time of war they would be a defence.
In this connection, I do not wish to weary the House with figures, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to the figures for gliding, which, after all, is a form of flying which can soon be changed into military flying. Germany, who has no military air force of any description, is regarded as one of the strongest air Powers. To-day she possesses 13,000 glider pilots. Russia, who is spending 2,250,000,000 roubles on armaments, being a Socialist State out for peace, of course, will have at the end of this year no fewer than 30,000 pilots. The United States of America flies at night commercially and civilly more mileage than the whole of the rest of the world flies during the day, we in this country possess 580 glider pilots. Those are facts which, I believe, speak for themselves, and I believe they are facts which prejudice our position in international relationships. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting this Motion, and in asking the Government to consider our views.

4.15 p.m.

Captain LODER: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "while" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
determined to pursue a course which will adequately safeguard this country's industrial, political, and national existence, and being anxious to co-operate in a general policy of peace and disarmament, considers that it is inexpedient to adopt any Resolution which might prejudice the success of international discussions now proceeding.
In moving this Amendment, I hope that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion will not take it amiss that the form in which they have chosen to raise this discussion should be challenged. Our only concern is that at this time nothing should go forth as the considered opinion of this House which might in any way be taken as an expression of want of confidence in the Government's handling of the international situation, or which might create an impression that the line which the Government have pursued with such single mindedness of purpose for the last two years, is henceforth useless.
I hope that I am interpreting the feelings and sentiments of those hon. Gentlemen correctly when I say that they do not want to give that impression. They have been very careful to express their appreciation of "the sincere efforts of His Majesty's Government to secure world-wide disarmament," and they have expressed the desire to co-operate in a policy of peace. I could not help detecting a vein of veiled criticism, and perhaps of something like scepticism, not only in the Motion itself, but in the remarks that fell from the Mover and Seconder. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) did not impress me very much with his pre-war analogy. He did not seem to make sufficient allowance for the different circumstances in which we stand to-day. We have had a war since, and there is a difference between a situation which was tense with the preparedness for war and one in which the defeated nations are to a very great extent disarmed and there is no other foe that we can see immediately upon the horizon.
He made a great point of the value of the military spirit in keeping up and promoting patriotism and for keeping up our self-respect as a nation. I should be the last person to belittle the value of physical training, whether it is achieved in a military unit or in any other form, but I hope that nothing that he said means that he wants to have the sort of militaristic convulsions which are a feature of the present regimes in Soviet Russia and Germany. I recognise, and I think that we all do, that the present state of the defence forces of the country causes anxiety to a great number of people. I have no quarrel with the ventilation of those anxieties in this
House, but I think that the hon. Member for Newport was going a little too far when he suggested that our Amendment was intended to stifle an expression of opinion. I can assure him that nothing of that kind was in any of our minds when the Amendment was put down.
There is a certain difference between ventilating anxiety and the implications of this Motion. Reading it, I find it exceedingly difficult not to draw the conclusion that it implies criticism of the Government. It implies that it is the Government's policy that has made our defences inadequate. I cannot help thinking that if this Motion is passed in its present form, many people at home and abroad would draw the conclusion that this House desired immediate and substantial re-armament. I do not think that the House is prepared to go as far as that, at the present juncture. Circumstances alter cases, and there are circumstances in which re-armament may be a necessity. The Foreign Secretary himself said as much yesterday, when he observed that, if a satisfactory disarmament agreement cannot be promptly arrived at, we may have to face the question of the state of our armament, which is at a low level, and of our own rearmament, if we are to live in a world which has begun to rearm. That is perfectly true, but those circumstances have not yet arisen.
I do not want to go over the ground which was covered by yesterday's Debate, but I hope that the House will allow me to recapitulate in a few sentences some of the objectives resulting from what was said yesterday. First of all, we want a disarmament convention, something which goes beyond limitation of arms and aims at a real reduction in armaments: If this is our objective, it does not seem that the Motion, which contains a suggestion that the proper thing to do is to rearm, comes very appropriately on the following day. Then there are all the specific details contained in the British Draft Convention and the recent White Paper. It is worth while drawing attention to the fact—I think it is a fact—that if a convention were adopted embodying those proposals it would go a long way towards arresting the disparity between our forces and those of other countries to which the Motion refers, be
cause on land we should see Continental armies reduced very much more nearly to the proportions of home defence forces and oversea garrison forces, such as our own, and at sea we should not lose the position to which we are fully entitled by our widespread Imperial responsibilities.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: We have lost it.

Captain LODER: In the air we should achieve parity with all the other great forces, a parity which we can only achieve to-day by a very substantial building programme. I believe that we are in a position of greater inferiority in the air than with any other arm, but for the moment it is our business to try to level down and not to level up. There are two roads by which security—which is the main theme of this Debate—may be sought. The first is by international agreement, and the second is by superiority in armaments. The second course is that which has been habitually pursued in the past, and it has always led to one country trying to lord it over the world and to an armed struggle. I need only mention Spain under Philip II, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, and the Germany of William II.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Was it not the policy of those monarchs which led to war?

Captain LODER: It was not the policy of the monarchs, but the policy of the countries. My hon. and gallant Friend must not read more into my argument than I was putting there. The fact is that under a system of competing armaments, some one country thinks that it has a chance of trying to lord it over all the others. We say that more can be done by the method of international agreement, and that we have achieved more success along those lines than has ever been achieved in the past. The League of Nations is the foundation upon which we have to build. The success of the Disarmament Conference would immeasurably increase the strength of the edifice of international confidence. The Lord Privy Seal concluded his speech yesterday with a statement of the effects of a failure of the Disarmament Conference and of the immense issues that are involved, which
must have impressed and moved everyone who heard it. We who have put our names to this Amendment do not wish, any more than the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, to see our national security jeopardised or the efficiency of His Majesty's Forces impaired, but we maintain that the time will not have come to emphasise the case for re-armament until the last resources of diplomacy have been exhausted.

4.29 p.m.

Captain McEWEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I appreciate the attempts of the hon. Member who moved the Motion to, as it were, clarify the situation as he sees it, but that, I submit, is the last thing it would do were the Motion to be carried. On the contrary, it would, in my submission, merely give the impression of divided counsels, of a half-hearted approach in two directions to two quite different objectives—on the one hand to disarmament, and on the other hand to re-armament. Half the troubles of Europe in the past have arisen from inability on the part of the Continent to understand our foreign policy. Hence the taunt of "Perfidious Albion." It was not, of course, that we were either perfidious or treacherous; it was merely that we felt sufficiently detached from the rest of Europe to be able to carry out an opportunist foreign policy. I do not use the word "opportunist" in this connection in any derogatory sense, but at the present time—and I think it would be as well that we should face this fact fairly and squarely—we are no longer detached; we are, for good or for evil, firmly welded to the comity of Europe. Therefore, there is no longer, if there ever was, any excuse for our carrying out a merely opportunist policy.
It seems to me that the wording of this Amendment explains sufficiently clearly what our intention is. It says, in the first place, that, while we are determined, as is quite natural, to see that the security of this country is adequately assured, we are at the same time anxious to co-operate with whomsoever will co-operate with us in the matter of disarmament, and that we are forced to regard the Motion as being inexpedient inasmuch as it gives the impression of completely divided heads. A. W. Kinglake, in summing up the causes which led to the Crimean War,
and speaking in particular of the year 1833, has this sentence:
Thus Europe was in repose; for, in general, when the world believes that England will be firm, there is peace.

Mr. CLARRY: That is the whole point of our Resolution.

Captain McEWEN: He goes on:
It is the hope of her proving weak or irresolute which tends to breed war.
It is precisely in the danger of adopting a policy which means two things at the same time, as would be the case if the Motion were adopted—it is for that very reason, and in these words, that I find my justification for supporting the Amendment.

4.34 p.m.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: I have noticed, during these defence Debates which take place from time to time, that no two speakers ever seem to agree. I understand that the object of these Debates is—to use the expression which my hon. and gallant Friend has just used—to clarify the best means of securing national defence and safety. However, all that happens on these occasions, so far as I can see from past experience, is that every speaker puts forward a different theory, generally a pet theory, as to how this defence should be carried out, and very often it is an extremely prejudiced theory. Already to-day we have heard something of the "do nothing at all" school. I presume that before the Debate is finished we shall hear something from the "disarm completely" brigade; and, as time goes on, we are assuredly likely to hear of the vested interests of the three Fighting Services. I may say in advance that I intend to add somewhat to the general discord; and I should like to add that with what has been said already, and what in my opinion is going to be said, I disagree entirely—that is to say, as far as theories on defence are concerned.
I may claim to know something of attacks by air, because during the War I had the privilege of serving both in a "Zepp-strafing" squadron in this country and also in a fighting squadron in France; but, even so, I disagree with that considerable air-minded school whose slogan is, "Attack is the best form of defence." I disagree with that entirely. I presume that, when they put forward
that slogan, they do not mean by it that they are going to start a war by being the first to attack. I imagine that the principle is that foreign nations would think twice before attacking this country, because we have the means of hitting back. I consider that to be a very praiseworthy theory, a theory that is typical of the bulldog breed; but to my mind it is completely out of date and absolutely useless.
I would ask the House to visualise, perhaps from a somewhat different point of view, the air attack of the future. Thousands of hostile machines would steal upon us, each with a definite objective; and here I will digress to the extent of pointing out that the art of blind flying has reached such perfection in these days that a bombing machine is capable of going at least 200 miles by compass, reaching a very small objective, hitting that objective, and getting back to its base without even having seen the objective. Further, I would remind the House that our aerodromes are few, and, taking into account the theory that attack is the best form of defence, I presume that all our attacking machines would have to be at aerodromes in the South of England—that is to say, if they wanted to reach the Continent easily. The position of the aerodromes would, of course, be known to the enemy, and it might easily happen that, before we could get our somewhat cumbersome retaliatory machines into the air, a large number of them would be put out of action by enemy machines. If the enemy attack came at night, it would be a far easier feat, because it stands to reason that, if you are getting a large number of machines up from aerodromes at night, it would be necessary to some extent to illuminate the machines as well as the aerodromes, and that would make them a much easier target; and, while our retaliatory machines—our raiding bombing machines—were being dealt with at their aerodromes before they were able to get into the air, other machines, perhaps thousands of them, would be concentrating on London.
Here I would point out, as has already been pointed out before, I think, by the Lord President of the Council in that famous speech which he made many months ago, that London is situated in a most unfortunate position geographically. It is in a more vulnerable position
than any other capital of any large European country. If we remember that London is practically next to our frontier, and if we compare the position of London with the position of Paris, Berlin, Madrid, or even Rome, the point becomes obvious. Again, London is the main artery of the whole of this country, in which respect it is different from the capitals of other countries, and, if a large hostile fleet of bombers were allowed to come over London unmolested and [...]unhindered, and were not prevented from dropping their bombs on strategical positions, what would be the result? Very probably the bombs used would not all be bombs of the same kind that we were used to in the last War—bombs of an explosive character. I have no doubt that many of the bombs would contain deadly poison gas, and even at the present time various forms of contagious disease are capable of being spread by means of bombs. The matter would obviously be far more serious in the future, especially as many more machines would be used, and it could very easily happen that the whole of London—and that would mean the whole country—would be disorganised, all our communications would be stopped, it would be impossible to get out mobilisation orders or messages to our aerodromes or our Fleet at sea; in fact, chaos would reign everywhere. Moreover, there would be no necessity for the enemy to land any troops or to enter into any naval engagement, for, after we had been completely disorganised, there would be nothing to prevent the indefinite and unmolested continuance of raids of destruction all over the country, until, completely demoralised, we accepted any terms that were offered.
I agree that there are probably some hon. Members who may be thinking that this is merely another scaremonger's speech, that it is a fantastic picture; but I would point out to any such sceptical Members that it was also considered fantastic at the beginning of the Great War to suggest that that War could possibly last for more than two weeks. It was also considered fantastic to think that the enemy would use such a weapon as poison gas, and many other War innovations were at one time considered fantastic. But I can assure hon. Members, from any slight practical experience
that I may have had on this subject, and from the conversations I have had with experts, that this conception is by no means an impossibility. The policy of a large fleet of retaliatory machines is a step in the right direction but, from the point of view of security, they will on their own be quite useless.
It may be asked: What then are we to do, because, if by any chance this theory proves correct, undoubtedly our Navy, as far as attack on this island is concerned, would prove useless, the Army would be of no avail, and an aggressive Air Force could in all probability be rendered impotent. Are we to do nothing? Certainly not. I consider that there is only one way of making ourselves secure as far as attack upon this island is concerned.
It has only recently become known that an aeroplane has been constructed in this country—I do not think the public yet know anything about it—which is able to climb something over 20,000 feet in a little over nine minutes. During the War—I can give my own personal experience—it used to take me generally about one hour to get up to the necessary height that the enemy were known to be approaching, and by the time I got to that height the enemy were back at their base and the occupants were having a meal. Compare that state of affairs with the present. Now you can get up to over four miles in a little over nine minutes. That means that these amazing machines—I think there are only one or two at the moment—can go practically straight up like a lift at 25 miles an hour. This aeroplane is a single seater. It is extraordinarily fast, it is capable of carrying two machine guns and its price is extremely reasonable. As compared with the price of an ordinary bomber capable of going over to the Continent, it is very reasonable indeed. It is not capable of being used for raiding purposes as it is unable to carry a sufficiency of bombs, and it has only a short range.
With a large fleet of these defensive machines we should be able to intercept an enemy 20 minutes after the warning was given that they were approaching our shores. Until recently this has proved an impossible proposition, because engineers have not been able to devise the necessary super-machine, in fact nothing definite was known of the
possibilities of such a super-machine when the Lord President of the Council made, a few months ago, the speech to which I referred. To-day the whole aspect of the theory of the defence of the country is completely changed because of this amazing engineering discovery and, provided we could throw a sufficiency of these machines into the air, raiding enemy aircraft could be dealt with night or day whatever the weather. Knowing this, I doubt very much whether an enemy in the future would start at all.
No doubt the obvious criticism would be: This is certainly a new and possibly a feasible idea provided the interseptors can see the raiding enemy machines, but what is going to occur if, say, 3,000 or 4,000 enemy machines come over in dense fog or mist or thick clouds? The answer to that is simple. In those circumstances they would not come at all. Consider the difficulty that now exists of maintaining an adequate Imperial Airway service between Paris and this country in foggy weather. Even though only two machines are going in opposite directions, nevertheless accidents have occurred in the past though not to Imperial Airway machines. For a raid such as I am envisaging it would be no use sending two or three machines. They would have to send over at least 1,000. Contemplate 1,000 machines going on a parallel course, with the same objective, in thick cloud. It would be nothing more nor less than a suicide club, and a great number of the machines would have laid each other out by collision before they arrived at their objective. I cannot believe that in such circumstances any pilots would be so fool-hardy as to embark on such an enterprise nor can I believe that commanding officers would ever dream of sending out their squadrons with so very little chance of success and with every chance of disaster and failure. Therefore, as I consider that that is the main criticism that can be put forward, and I do not believe there is any foundation in that criticism, I maintain that such a policy as I have laid before the House would not only give us adequate protection but it would be protection without aggressiveness, which is important, and it would be protection which would not create foreign competition, with its subsequential race in armaments. And a consideration that should not be overlooked is that such a policy might well be an economy because, with this security
and feeling of safety which would be given to the country, many far more expensive forms of armament could be done away with.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Debate to me has taken on a complete air of unreality. It is very strange that we should be talking in this way after two years of a National Government which we are told has been supremely successful both in the field of domestic and foreign policy. Every speaker that I have listened to so far has assumed that war is inevitable, and that the best thing we can do is to prepare for it in some way or another; how, no one seems quite to know. There is no insistence upon any particular form either of defence or attack, and it would seem that we must prepare on an all-round scale. Neither is there any indication whatever as to where the enemy is to be found. Air attack is assumed, but from where is the attack to come? Who is going to attack us? Is it France? Is it Germany? Is it France and Germany combined? More unlikely things have happened than that. Is it a combination-which will include Italy or is it all the Fascist States, which will make an attack upon what will be the only remaining democratic State?
I am prepared to argue that the Socialist State so-called is the most pacific State in the world. You say that Russia is armed, but they have done it deliberately because they feared that they were open to attack by all, and most countries in Europe have helped to bolster up that belief, whether it was true or not, for there is scarcely a capital city in any country which is not riddled with all kinds of anti-Russian counter-revolutionary organisations all of which have pet proposals of their own for undermining and overthrowing the existing Government of Russia. In those circumstances, hon. Members opposite and behind me ought not to condemn the Russian Government for taking a line that they preach themselves as being the only possible successful line in face of the danger that threatens them.
After all, the necessity for armaments, whether naval, air, or land, depends entirely on the kind of policy that we pursue. From 1905 to 1914 the policy of this country was dictated by what I believe was a fact, that we were in
arrangement with Russia and France against possible hostile attack from the countries of the Triple Alliance. Therefore, in those years our policy was not directed against France. Neither was it directed against Russia. Had it been, our tactics would have had to be of a different character. One asks what is the policy that we are pursuing now. Whence does the danger arise? Security has been talked about. We have signed more Pacts and Conventions in the last few years than ever before in our history in a like period. Convention has followed convention, and pact has followed pact, and yet here to-day we are talking about security. Do we rest upon the Locarno Pact? Do we rest upon the Kellogg Pact? Are these things of any use to us? If we still regard them as useful, should they not affect the policy which we pursue with regard to our military preparations? Are we still holding to our belief in the League of Nations, or have we by our own deliberate policy weakened it to such an extent that we can reckon upon it no longer as being of a supporting character so far as we are concerned?
The foreign policy the Government have pursued in the last two years is making all this talk almost a necessity. Much of it has arisen, I believe, because of our wrong policy with regard to Japan. The Government made a fatal error in that respect. I have said this before, and I shall continue to say it, because I believe that the question of peace is one of the utmost and most paramount importance to the world. It is very requisite that we should put forward our ideas as to where we in this House go wrong, and that we should be subject to correction. If I am proved wrong, I shall be pleased to accept correction. Almost up to the end of 1931 there was a hope and belief that the League of Nations might prove effective, even on the first great trial in September, 1931, after the National Government had been in office for a month, with regard to Japan and its attack upon China through Manchuria. It cannot be said that there was any dubiety about the position of Japan.
The League of Nations set up a commission, at the head of which was appointed an Englisman of undoubted integrity, whose word nobody in any country in the world has dared to challenge,
and which, I venture to predict, cannot be challenged. The findings of that committee were of a very definite character. Their examination was of the most complete order. They went to Manchuria and investigated on the spot. They hinted very broadly that the alleged incident out of which the action of Japan arose was a framed-up job. In fact, it has been stated that a British agent, four days after the beginning of the conflict in Manchuria, sent a report to the British Government which riddled completely the Japanese claim and proved that the whole incident was non-existent.
It is stated—and I should like to know that it could be contradicted as definitely as it is stated—that the British Government kept this information from the League of Nations. If that was so it was in line with the policy which was subsequently pursued, because in face of the definite findings of the Lytton Commission, the Foreign Secretary of this country did his best to whitewash Japan. Although he admitted that she was technically wrong, morally she was right. I do not understand that view. Great lawyers may but I do not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Might is right!"] It was pronounced in this House from those benches that, although technically she was wrong, morally she was right, and that we ought to support her. In fact, so well did the Foreigh Secretary argue the case before the League of Nations that the Japanese representative, Mr. Matsuoka, thanked the Foreign Secretary for having put his case before the League better than he could have done it himself. That, I believe, was the prime error in our foreign policy and much of what has arisen since has arisen out of that fact. Herr Frick, who is now Hitler's Minister of the Interior, said some months afterwards, but before the Nazi Government came into power, "I pay my respects to the League, but I take off my hat to Japan." It had shown Germany that if the League was only sufficiently affronted it could be ignored.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the Government in not taking some economic or other action against Japan was wrong, and does he mean that we should have taken that action?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Our Government should have backed up general action by the League of Nations.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That would have meant war with Japan.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is an assumption which my hon. and gallant Friend is unable to prove. I think that from the records and statements made by various important individuals there was sufficient evidence to show that we could have had the backing of France and of the United States of America. I feel convinced that, if this country had had the backing of France and of the United States of America, and the moral hacking of several other Powers, probably that influence would have been sufficient to have deterred Japan from the line she was taking. What is the effect as far as our own policy is concerned? Only a week or two ago a more or less secret conference was held on board His Majesty's Ship "Kent" at Singapore. Prominent Australians were present. I do not know what conclusions were arrived at, but I have seen it stated that as the outcome of that conference the naval policy of the Government is to be changed, that there is to be a development in the Southern Pacific, and that we are to begin now to establish a tremendous naval base in the Falkland Islands. Against whom is that to be directed? If it is correct, it will have a tremendous effect upon the future policy of this country. I am simply using the information given in the Press, as one must do. I am quoting from the Press, and I say frankly that I saw the statement in the "Daily Herald." It is as authentic as the "Daily Mail." There need not be any jeers about it. I learn that the "Times" has been discovered lying, and do not forget that fact.

Mr. WISE: Did the "Daily Herald" get the ocean wrong as well?

Mr. WALLHEAD: If the Falkland Islands is right, we can find the ocean on the map. If my knowledge of geography in that area is not as good as that of the hon. Member, the Falkland Islands, from my point of view, is enough. If that is correct, it marks another development, and we now have to consider, at any rate, officially, that Japan is a potential enemy, although for years she has been our friend. If this is the first outcome of our friendly action there only about two years
ago, it is very bad payment for the kind turn we did her then.
One could go on with regard to other policies. Whatever our policy may be with regard to armaments, it will be determined by the policy we pursue at the Foreign Office. That is the determining factor. Are we to regard France as a potential enemy? If so, we must arm supremely in the air. Must we increase our naval strength? Some hon. Gentlemen will say "yes." Against whom? Germany, France again, Italy, or is it the United States of America? Are we to regard the United States as the potential enemy against whom we must prepare? If we are to prepare against the United States, where are we to prepare against them? Are we to prepare against Russia? Why do we want a great naval force against Russia? The land force is not of much use there. Where are these enemies against whom we must prepare? Of what do they consist? I see that in the Resolution we are asked to urge
His Majesty's Government to pursue a course which will adequately safeguard our industrial, political, and national existence.
If the experience of the late War is anything to go by, that is the last thing that military preparation can do. They are the very things which military preparation in that War destroyed. They are the things which suffer most, and most nations are now realising it. I admit that war may come, but I do not know who the enemy may be, and I do not know from what direction it may come. I am prepared to admit, as the seconder of the Motion put it, that war is the outcome of economic competition. I want us to begin to take some risk to avoid war of that character, to have some belief in the League of Nations, to extend its power, and to try and avoid this continual striving for the possession of raw materials, here, there or anywhere else. It is very seldom that we bother our heads about the control of raw material for commercial purposes. The materials that may be useful from the point of view of war are those about which we trouble most of all. I believe that until men have sufficient sense to form some international board which will control raw materials with a view to seeing that all nations get their fair share and have access to them for all legitimate purposes, we shall not rid the world of the fear of war.
If war comes again, the end of it no man can foresee. The Lord President of the Council has told us what might be the result of future war—it would be the end of the civilisation that we now know. He visualised the establishment of a civilisation based upon a different economic conception, an economic conception which he might not like but which I personally do not fear. If it were established and the world could be rid of the horror of warfare, then the world would have purchased its freedom at a cheap price. It is time that we began to take some little risks for peace. We take a great many risks for war. The time is not far distant when we shall discover that to risk a little with the object of maintaining peace will be well worth doing.
I would impress upon the Government the desirability of changing the outlook in regard to many aspects of this question. There was a Debate in this House yesterday, and not a very satisfactory one. We have moved considerably in regard to our attitude towards Germany. Not long ago she was an outcast. The Germans were Huns, they were the outcasts of Europe, they were of such a character that they were not considered to be fit to be entrusted with weapons of a lethal character. Now, according to our changed conception, Germany must be allowed to have almost as much as she wants. No longer is fear of Germany to be expressed. As we move from one position to another, the situation becomes worse. The action of the Foreign Secretary so far as the handling of this question is concerned, reminds me of a character who said of himself:
The good I would, I do not;
What evil I would not, that I do.
I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary desires to do evil. As an individual his integrity is beyond dispute, but his policy and the policy of his Government is wrong. So far as the Motion and the Amendment are concerned, I and my party will vote against both.

5.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel CRUDDAS: I rise to support the Motion. I do not intend to follow the last speaker very far. I followed him as far as the Falkland Islands, and then I found that I was lost. I agree with him on one point, where he
said that he does not know where our enemy is to come from. Nor do I at the present time. One hon. Member said that we all have our pet theories. My pet theory is the question of the safety of our food supply. No nation attacks another unless it can see some reasonable chance of success. It is the duty of the general staff to find the weak spots in other nations, and I suggest that it is the duty of a statesman to find his own weak spot and to eliminate it. The first consideration of a general officer commanding a force in the field, is the provision and safety of his food supplies. A shortage of munitions or a shortage of stores is very unpleasant, but it is not fatal, as would be the case with a shortage of food. The first consideration of a country like ours, which imports so large a proportion of its food, is to safeguard its food supplies.
During the last war, after our Navy had cleared the seas of enemy surface ships, after it had dealt successfully with enemy submarines, and when aircraft had not been developed to the pitch we may expect in the future, our food supplies caused us grave anxiety. Let us imagine ourselves in another war. I say "imagine" advisedly, because I do not see with whom we are to be involved. Let us imagine that we have increased our Army to a sufficient strength to give us an expeditionary force, that we have invaded the enemy country, that we can supply the expeditionary force from our Dominions, and that we have won battle after battle. It would be of no use if by any form of blockade this country could be starved. Therefore, I want to support the suggestion which will be made later in greater detail, that we need to co-ordinate not only the plans but the finance of our three Fighting Services. When I look at the composition of the Committee of Imperial Defence I wonder whether there is anyone there who is charged with the duty of keeping alive and up-to-date the organisation and control of our food supplies. I have no doubt that we have the organisation there, all pigeon-holed, but is there anybody there whose duty it is to keep it up-to-date?
Such a representative would need to go to the conferences regularly and keep in the closest touch with the heads of Departments. He would want to
approach the Admiralty and Air Ministry to ask them which ports he ought to use. He would want to see the President of the Board of Trade to find out the facilities at the various ports. He would want to see the Minister of Transport to see about the distribution of food throughout the country, and he would want to see the Minister of Mines, because the more oil and petrol we could produce in this country, the more ships would he available for the carriage of food. Last, but not least, he would want to see the Minister of Agriculture. We all disliked the old-fashioned jingo who used to boast in song that:
We've got the men, we've got the ships, and we've got the money too.
I would forgive him a great deal if he could add that we have also got the food. I should prefer his noisy confidence to the confidence of the man who refuses to believe in or is unable to see any possibility of, danger in the future. A rich country which is open to attack is provocative of war. If we can persuade the world that we have so organised ourselves that our food supplies are secure, many people in this country would be much happier, and at the same time we should have done a real service to the cause of peace.

5.25 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Although there is a great deal in what has been said by hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Motion, and also by hon. Members who have spoken on the Amendment, with which I entirely agree, there is one feature common both to the Motion and the Amendment with which I so heartily disagree, that if they go to a Division, I shall certainly give neither my vote. Both the Motion and the Amendment and the speeches made in support of them suggest that the maintenance of a sound and adequate defence by this country is in some way inconsistent with the policy of pursuing the limitation of armaments. We have had that argument both ways. We have been told that we are not entitled to bring our defences up to Treaty limits at the present time, because that might weaken and not strengthen our diplomacy in securing limitation of armaments by Convention. We have also had the argument the other way. I heartily disagree with both those arguments.
Let me take, first, the argument for the Motion. I agree with those who support it, that our defences are not at the present time what they should be. So far as the Army is concerned, I do not know, and I should be glad to be told if anybody does know, for what purpose the Regular Army is organised in this country at the present time. It seems to me that we need another Lord Haldane. I hope the present Secretary of State for War, Lord Hailsham, is directing himself to that problem; I am sure that he must be doing so. So far as the air is concerned, there is no doubt whatever that our position is extremely insecure. As for the sea, we not only have far fewer ships than we are entitled to possess under Treaty limits to which we have agreed, but those ships are not going to sea as they ought. The Navy is not getting the sea practice or the sea service which it ought to have. So far, I agree entirely with the Resolution.
But I do not agree that the pursuit of disarmament should be abandoned in order that we may bring our defences up to strength. It would be insanity on the part of the leaders of this country at the present time not to pursue a policy of limitation of armaments with all their strength. Thirty years ago, a Conservative Government determined that even in the conditions that prevailed at that time, the cost and the danger of maintaining adequate defences for the Empire against all corners were much too great. At that time we had resources which we do not now possess. We had extensive investments all over the world. We had greater national wealth. We had lower taxation and we had by comparison an insignificant debt. We had a fleet then of a two-Power standard, a fleet which had enabled us to carry out a great colonial war without interference from any European Powers, although, as is well known now, more than one of those Powers would have liked to intervene. I need hardly labour the comparison between our situation then and our situation now. Our resources have been to a large extent weakened if not dissipated altogether. Our taxation is very high, our debt is 10 times what it was at that time, and we have a fleet which is no longer up even to a one-Power standard. It is essential, as the Motion says, that we
should have security. With that I entirely agree, but it is equally essential to us, in our present condition, that we should have security at the minimum cost. There is no matter of greater importance to this country at the present time than the pursuit of the policy of limitation of armaments. So much for the realist side of the argument. I would support the Motion but for the fact that in the latter part it seems to set the policy of a limitation of armaments and the policy of adequate defence in opposition, a point of view with which I entirely disagree. There never was a time when realists in this country should concentrate more whole-heartedly on preventing another race in armaments.
Coming to the Amendment and to some of the speeches which have been made in support of it, and particularly to the speech made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Wallhead) on the other side of the case, I feel that there is some excuse for the realists in this argument, that they derive some excuse from the attitude of idealists who seem to think that complete disarmament on our part, unilateral disarmament, can possibly be a substitute for adequate defence. Those who concentrate on disarmament at the present time are pursuing a great ideal. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil has my sympathy when he says that he hopes to see the reign of law and the disappearance of force as a national instrument in international affairs. But surely it is a profound mistake to suppose that in international affairs, any more than in national affairs, the law can dispense with the support of force. It is not true of the law within a single State however highly civilised. The comparison is often made that because duelling has been abolished inside the State, or by municipal law, therefore, international war should be abolished; that as force has gone in one polity why should it not be abolished in the wider polity of the nations? How was duelling abolished? It was abolished because force was there to prevent it being carried on, because the law was supported by adequate force. That is the true ideal in international affairs. If we want to secure the reign of law in international affairs just as we have secured it in our own national affairs then in international, as in municipal,
affairs the law must be supported by force.
Some day perhaps we shall work out the creation and establishment of an international force, but for the time being we must look to the collaboration of those Powers which really want peace and the reign of law to give their support to law and refuse to adopt an attitude of neutrality when the law is broken. Force, which is a barbarous and criminal thing when it defies the law, is surely a civilising and beneficent thing when it supports the law. We must be prepared to play our part with adequate forces if we want to secure in the world as at present constituted a stable limitation of armaments, to support the reign of law and also if we want to ensure and stabilise peace. For these reasons, I dislike the Amendment almost as much as I dislike the latter part of the Motion.
There is real tragedy ill the difference of view which underlies the conflict between the Motion and the Amendment, because when England is divided against herself, as she seems to be on this issue, she can exercise but a very inadequate influence for disarmament and peace. We Englishmen—I cannot speak for the other races and nations who are represented in this House—certainly have a double nature, which is compounded curiously of realism and idealism, just as the air is compounded of one gas which is heavier than air, and another gas which is lighter than air, nitrogen and oxygen. When these two elements in our nature combine then we can really make ourselves felt with effect, but when they are warring against each other, as they seem to be now, our influence in the world disappears.
The greatest example which can be found is our history between 1904 and 1914. All through the 10 years leading up to the War England was divided against herself. If she had not been so divided I believe the war might have been avoided, but, at any rate, when the crisis came, when Belgium was invaded, England became one. Why? The invasion of Belgium, the breach of treaty faith, the wrong done to a small nation, stirred all the idealism in our nature, but the realist side also recognised that this breach of a treaty was a mortal peril to
ourselves, and both sides of our nature came together in the determination we then formed to see the War through. If we could get back that unity at the present time we should be able to do a thousand times more than we are doing now. This duality of our nature is a paralysing weakness when the two sides are in conflict, as they seem to be now. I have been told that the air contains not only the two most important elements, nitrogen and oxygen, but also a considerable measure of another gas called argon, an inert gas, and I sometimes suspect that when the two sides of Englishmen are in conflict an undue proportion of this inert gas somehow rises through the orifices which supply air to the lungs of hon. Members in this House and perhaps supply air to the lungs of right hon. Gentlemen of the Treasury Bench.
I should like to have moved an Amendment of a different kind to the Motion, but, unfortunately, I did not see the terms of the Motion in time, and, therefore, had no opportunity of putting it down or of ascertaining whether it would secure any support from hon. Members. But if I had had the opportunity of putting that Amendment down it would have been to the effect that our weakness in defence at the present time was prejudicial both to the security of the Empire and to the effective pursuit of disarmament and peace. As things stand, I cannot vote for the Motion or the Amendment. I can only express a fervent hope that our leaders in the next few critical weeks will hammer out a policy which does justice both to the realist and the idealist side in our nature, that we shall have sound and adequate defences and that we shall use them to prevent another race in armaments, to supporting the reign of law in international affairs, and by that means give the nations peace.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: Throughout the greater part of the Debate of yesterday there seemed to be a great passion for realism and to-day in almost every speech the same passion has been expressed. We must think realistically. I agree entirely, but it seems to me that there is an underlying assumption that the only people who can think and talk realistically are those who have expert knowledge in the technique of armaments.
Admirals, Generals, and so on, can speak, it is assumed with an authority which those who occupied minor posts during the War, whose experience of fighting was limited to trench warfare, cannot possess. We cannot claim to be experts. I cannot forget, as the result of copious reading of the many books which have been published since the War, that those who claimed to be experts then were sadly out in their calculations, and our experience during the War makes me feel rather diffident about accepting the authoritativeness of those who claim to have expert knowledge.
I ask the House to address itself to the realities of the situation. It will be agreed that there is nothing to be gained by Great Britain further weakening her defences. If Great Britain ceased to be a potential ally or foe international anarchy would become intensified. Until we have an International Police Force Britain must be sufficiently armed to make her worth while as an ally and as a potential force in preserving world peace. That proposition will be commonly accepted, but I feel that we have failed to realise the relativity which must enter into all calculations of armaments. An hon. Member has made the point that we ought to consider who our potential enemies may be. Obviously, if we pursue a policy of isolation as some hon. Members seem to desire, if the pooled security as embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations is renounced and Britain with her Empire stand alone, the problem of armaments must be regarded from a different angle. If we are to maintain our shores inviolate, if we are to ensure the security of our food supplies, and so forth, and prevent aerial bombardment of our cities, obviously we must increase our armaments very much beyond the limits which we have now assigned. If the Empire is going to become an isolated entity then, of course, we shall have to consider the Far East; we shall have to consider the defence of Australia and of our Far-Eastern possessions, but, we nave to consider such problems in relation to actualities.
What are the probabilities of a war? I have spent a certain amount of time during the last few years in Central Europe and the Balkans, and I feel that we ought to face the reality of conditions in those areas. How is war to come?
From what directions is there a menace in these days? I have never believed that war comes primarily from armaments. War always comes from injustices of one kind or another. Viewing the situation, I cannot but feel that there are three main causes which ought to be considered as potential causes of another war. The first is the scramble for markets. It all depends on what kind of philosophy of history you have. If you have the heroic philosophy of history you find the causes in another direction, but as an economic realist I cannot but feel that this is inevitably one of the causes.
What is the position in the Far East? Western civilisation has been adopted by Japan. In 1853 Japan was more or less a hermit country, with very little association with the outside world. We offered to it the blessings of an industrial civilisation. The population grew, as it inevitably does under industrial expansion. The population increases now at the rate of something between 800,000 and 1,000,000 a year. What is its outlet? You taught Japan mass production and how to utilise cheap labour. Let us be frank. When Great Britain became industrialised she had an empty world and she proceeded to appropriate that empty world. She built up markets. You cannot deny to Japan those privileges which we, rightly or wrongly, arrogated to ourselves. It is no good saying that we must consider the menace of Japan and have a naval base here or there, and consider the defence of Australia. If Japan becomes a menace it it because she must have room to expand. Whether it is right or wrong, I am not considering the merits of the contention, you say that Australia must be a white country. Canada does not admit the Japanese. The United States refuses admission to Japanese. What are the Japanese to do? It is sheer nonsense, footling futility, to say that Japan shall not be allowed that room for expansion which we claimed. You taught her industry, taught her to search for markets, and you have to face up to the realities of that situation.
Then you have the problem that will probably be a fertile cause of dissension, the problem of repressed nationalities. Take the case of Austria. We talk about the menace of the Auschluss. We say that
at all costs we must prevent the union of Austria and Germany. The victorious Allies stripped Austria, of every economic asset that was worth while. Industrial areas, were torn from her by the succession States. She was left more or less a derelict country, quite incapable of maintaining economic independence. In 1919 her General Assembly framed a constitution which contained a Clause saying that Austria was a part of the German Reich. In 1920–21 that same General Assembly demanded a plebiscite, so that the people of Austria might decide whether or not they should be part of the German Reich. We stripped Austria of resources, and we have had to keep her going. France and ourselves have been pumping millions into her. She is quite incapable, even to-day, with the assets which Italy has offered by allowing Trieste to be used as a free port and a guaranteed market for a certain percentage of agricultural produce. It is no good saying "Here lies a menace, and we must consider armaments in relation to this new menace of a union between Germany and Austria." If you continue to treat Austria as a defeated nation, if you ask her to maintain an independent, economic existence when you have taken away from her all the props and pillars that make that possible, you are living in a world of make-believe.
Then you come to a country like Jugoslavia. There you have a situation which in my judgment is full of menace. I do not make any accusation against Italy as having designs on the other side of the Adriatic though one could say something about it. But in Jugoslavia you have a situation which is an invitation to anyone with Imperialist designs. Those at Versailles and St. Germain lacked wisdom. They tried to make a union of the Serbs and the Croats. The thing is utterly impossible. They are all Slays and have the same blood, but they have an entirely different tradition. For 500 years the Serbs were under the heels of the Turks, but the Croats have drawn all their cultural inspiration from the West, and they boast that the Turk has never put his foot in their territory. Yet you try to make a union of people who will never unite. There you have a situation on the Adriatic that is full of menace.
I am not competent to deal with air forces, with the exact magnitude of our Navy in relation to our needs, nor with the Army. I cannot make any worthwhile contribution on that subject; I leave it to others who know. But I would plead with this House to face the realities of the situation. So long as you have these injustices poisoning the bloodstreams of Europe, so long as you have countries where you try to fuse and blend and merge elements that will never make a homogeneous union, so long as you have in the succession States strong irredentist minorities, and so long as you refuse to nations which are industrially expanding a fair share of the world's raw materials, fair opportunities for marketing their goods, fair opportunities for securing spheres for investing their industrial capital, Geneva and Locarno are of little worth. You can have your pacts, your agreements and your conventions, you can meet till the crack of doom, but until you undertake the removal of these injustices, which are like cankers in the body of Europe, so long will all your talk about disarmament be fatuous and futile.

5.54 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate until it struck me what an enormous responsibility rested on every Member of this House in the matter that we are discussing. We are all personally responsible, and the Front Bench especially so, for the feeding of the people in these islands, and we have to be perfectly certain that the food supply is protected. Personally I have always believed in the strong man who uses his strength in the right way—the fellow who is not a bully. One sees it all through life, in the preparatory school and in the public school, where things go well so long as the boys at the top are strong physically as well as mentally. When they are strong only mentally you may have trouble, but if they are strong physically as well as mentally the school is happy, contented and well-run. I have noticed the same thing in the factories with which I have been associated. So long as you use your strength and do not use it to oppress, you have very little trouble with your working people. I am certain that in the case of a country it is exactly the same thing. What would the National Government be with weak Whips? I do not say that they would
ever oppress or do anything like that, but if they were not strong they would find out that trouble was in store for them. So why should not we be strong?
I personally believe that if in 1914 we had had a bigger Army there would have been no war, and the position to-day in the way of taxation would have been very different from what it is. I believe that it was a case of our being penny-wise and pound-foolish, for Germany would never have dared to attack if we had had an Army double the size of that which we possessed. I also feel that after the War we disarmed far too quickly. If we had had something with which to go to the other nations and to say: "Now we are prepared to disarm if you are going to disarm," we could have made a bargain. But what is the position to-day? The other nations know that we have disarmed as far as we can possibly go, and we have nothing left with which to bargain. What they are doing now is deliberately to arm against us.
The question of disarmament is not getting on very quickly. I am afraid that we are trying to beat a dead horse. We were talking about it in the Smoking Room. If we look at history we find that one of the bloodiest wars in history was that between the North and South in America, where neither side was armed at the outset. The war went on with results, in bloodshed and slaughter, as great, in proportion to the forces employed, as the slaughter in the Great War. Disarmament will not make it certain that there is not to be a war, but a really strong Britain is a thing which will have a peaceful influence on the whole world. This is not a question that the ordinary man in the street really understands. It is a question for the experts at the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force to inform us about. I would like to know whether they are satisfied that the Navy is big enough, that the Army is big enough, and that the Air Force is powerful enough to ensure supplies of food to this country. I do not think it is fair for those who may have the settling of the question to take any gamble on the position. They ought to be entirely guided on this subject by their experts. This enormous and wealthy Empire spread all over the world is a plum for anyone who could take it and we are open to attack from many quarters. Are the Admiralty, the War Office and those at the head of
the Air Force, satisfied that they can guard this Empire? If not, it is for them to show their sense of responsibility by letting the country know the real position. To take a chance by keeping it quiet a little while longer, in the hope that we are going to get some sort of deal as regards further disarmament, would be an absolute delusion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I think the general sense of nearly all the speeches, both for the Motion and for the Amendment, has been in favour of preserving peace in some way or other. The only exception to that rule was, I think, the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wall-head) who seemed not averse from entering upon a war provided it was not under the banner of his own country. If we went to war under the Rampant Dove of Geneva, or the Hammer and Sickle, then apparently in that case war would be justified and necessary according to the hon. Member's view. But the other speakers were united on the fact that peace must be preserved at all costs. I was particularly glad to hear one lone voice from the Liberal benches, which have been in their present empty state for the greater part of the afternoon. I was particularly glad to hear from that quarter an impassioned plea that we should face realities. Discussions on security or on armaments are prone to get away from the realities and to come down either to unimportant details or vague generalisations.
Security can be attained in several ways. It can be attained by isolation, a policy which, I think, the House with few exceptions would agree, is impossible. It could also be attained by alliance and that is the method which has been used in English history in the past for the maintenance of peace and security. We have never, in our military history when we could help it, relied exclusively on our own strength. We have always sought alliances, first with one Power and then with another, in order to preserve a balance and maintain a security which no one nation could ever provide for itself. Since the War we have departed from our old traditional diplomatic policy of searching for useful alliances for the preservation of peace, and have embarked on a new course
known sometimes as open diplomacy—as opposed to secret diplomacy—and also known as common international action. After 16 years of open diplomacy those of us who are disturbed about the security of our country may well take stock, to find whether that security is best preserved by continuing this apparently unending series of conferences, or whether we should not return to the old policies of this country, and entrust the handling of our diplomacy once more to the professionals instead of to the amateurs, and endeavour to restore the old doctrine of the balance of power.
That doctrine maintained the peace of Europe for just on 100 years without any major war. It succeeded in isolating such wars as occurred, from the end of the Napoleonic wars to the beginning of the last War. Ultimately, it is true, it failed and the last War broke out, but the question arises: Is Europe, as a whole, not nearer war to-day than it has been at any time in that 100 years? I think an impartial survey must reveal that Europe, as a whole, is far nearer war to-day. If we are to seek allies if is obvious that we must have something to offer. One of the reasons for the failure of the Disarmament Conference up to the present, and the reason for its ultimate failure—which, I believe, is bound to come—is that when we turn to a country, such as France for instance, and say, "Can you not base an alliance on the Locarno Treaty? Here we are ready to come to your help if your frontier is violated," the French, being a reasonable and logical race, reply, "We may not doubt your willingness, but with what are you going to help us?" It is just for that reason that the Conference fails.
At the moment, an alliance with England, either from a military or naval point of view, is worth nothing to our allies. That is a state of things which has not, I believe, occurred since the Wars of the Roses, and it is a state of things which ought to be tolerated no longer. When a situation arises in which the military value of Belgium to France is greater than that of England to France, it is time that we took thought of our defences, and of what we have to offer to any possible ally, and also of the ally to whom we ought to offer it. We spend every year a great
deal of money on the defence of the country. It may not be enough. Indeed, I am prepared to agree with a number of hon. Members who contend that it is not enough. But at least we can see that we get value for what we spend, and I do not believe we are getting that value now. We, as an Empire, have military problems of our own which can be solved without reference to the armaments of other countries.
Reference has already been made to the question of convoying and protecting food-ships. I would not descend to arguing the details of how naval expenditure ought to be distributed. If I did so, I should lay myself open to two broadsides, one from the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) and the other from the First Lord of the Admiralty. The same remark applies to the Air service which has been very ably discussed already by two hon. Members. So far, the Army has been left out of the discussion, but it is by no means an unimportant factor in considering our national policy. We have in the last few years, presumably for reasons of economy, treated the Army as a form of police with rifles, to sit in towns and overawe crowds, ignoring the fact that the main idea of a regular army is to have a striking force which may some day have to go to war, and fight against another army as well trained and as well armed as itself. In our case it would have to consider the possibility of meeting a better armed force.
We have neglected the mechanisation of the Army. I think no soldier can controvert the statement that we have now for each division of our Army a supply of artillery to prepare for attack which is only equivalent to what would cover the front of two battalions. Out of every 12 battalions of our Army, 10 are merely there to act as targets for aeroplanes and cannot be put into action with efficiency. Obviously, either you do not want the 10 battalions at all, or you must put them into some form of protective cover where they can act as a defensive force, or, as a third alternative, you must increase your artillery. If we could neglect for the moment any consideration except that of achieving the maximum efficiency in our fighting
services with such money as we can afford for that purpose, we should be able to get back to our real protection, which is protection by diplomatic action. Possibly it is impious to hope that the Disarmament Conference may be unsuccessful, but it is a very strong temptation to those who for over 16 years have watched conference after conference, the result of each one of which has been a diminution in the power of England, and further chaos on the Continent of Europe.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: It would be a very unfortunate indication of the feeling in this House, if the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down were to be taken as representative of it. He concluded by almost expressing the wish that the Disarmament Conference would fail. I feel that that view is not widely shared in the House. Yesterday we discussed with some disappointment, which was apparent in all parts of the House, the relative lack of success in achieving a Disarmament Convention, but we left here last night with the impression that the Government were still striving to achieve an agreement. It is unfortunate that this Motion has been brought forward to-day. It conveys to people outside this House, and especially to those who watch our proceedings from a distance, a sense of insincerity and an idea that we are inconsistent even from one day to another. I regret some of the speeches which have been made this afternoon. While there may be some justification for an examination of the position of our armed forces, there is no excuse for some of the self-depreciation which we have heard.
This Motion refers to disarmament, and expresses appreciation of the sincere efforts of the Government to achieve agreement. It then goes on to urge the Government to pursue a course which will "adequately safeguard our industrial, political and national existence." I do not know exactly what that means. I would possibly take a very different view from the Mover of this Motion as to the interpretation of that part of the Motion. If it were left to me, I might suggest that the best way to safeguard our industrial, political and national existence would be to change the Government of this country, or to change the
industrial and economic policy which the Government are carrying out at present. If the hon. Member had been content to survey our position in relation to other States and the effect of anything which we do from time to time upon our relations with other States, he might confer a service upon the House and the country. But when, in an attempt to prove his case, he recalls pre-War controversies about the Navy and so forth, he is not so helpful. We all remember the days in which we claimed a two-Power naval standard for ever, and when serious politicians and even statesmen of worldwide renown joined in the chant:
We want eight, and we won't wait!
and all that kind of nonsense. All that was political controversy, and passed for statesmanship of the highest order. The hon. Gentleman recalled to us that that standard had been abandoned. It was abandoned because circumstances have changed, and that argument shows how terribly uncertain are the conditions that those who place safety in armaments make from time to time. He said the danger to us had increased tenfold since those days, that we are in a position 10 times more dangerous to-day than it was in those days, but he omitted to say—and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last did not deal as faithfully as he might with the point—where the danger is to come from. The hon. Member said, "Trust to the diplomats." What does that mean? Is it trusting to skill in diplomacy, to negotiations, conciliation, persuasion? Does he trust in them?

Mr. WISE: In all of them.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has he not in his mind, behind all this diplomacy and consultation, the idea that we must be armed, that we must be in a position to impose our will on people who disagree with us? Then what is the use of pretending to rely upon diplomacy, if he believes that the ultimate safeguard is force? I would like to know what estimate of force these gentlemen have in mind. Is it one enemy, or two enemies, or a combination of enemies? What standard of armament do the hon. Members believe to be necessary in order to give us the safety and the security which they desire? In the pre-War days, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr.
Churchill) will remember quite well, we were building up our naval preparations mainly against one country. It was in view of Germany's naval preparations that the insistent demand was made in this country for six or eight years before the War broke out. Germany has now disappeared as a naval force altogether. Germany is no longer taken into account in trying to arrange for naval armaments, and there is no stability, there is no possible ground for examining the armaments which we require unless we know what kind of opposition we have to face, particularising in regard to names and position in every single case.
If one imagined that countries A, B, and C were potential enemies, one would have to estimate, not only the naval strength, but the air strength and the army resources, required to cope with those enemies, each of which would have their own geographical position as well as resources in men and materials of different kinds, and it is quite beyond the capacity of any experts to lay down an ideal condition of armament which would satisfy all possible requirements of this country from the point of view of security. Because of this uncertainty, both in regard to the people who might be our allies and in regard to those who might be our enemies, there is no safety, there is no possible balance-sheet of safety, in any attempt to maintain sufficient armed forces for the purpose. Our own armed forces would not be sufficient, and we should have to have regard to the measure of strength, not only of our enemies, but also of our allies. The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred to the question of enemies and allies, and I would like the House to realise how quickly these allies change into enemies, and how quickly enemies become friends, under conditions that develop from day to day.
Because of the dangerous state of flux in which Europe and the world find themselves to-day, all these attempts publicly to debate the military, naval, and air requirements of this country are highly dangerous and should not be entertained until it is quite definitely and finally established that there is no hope of a world agreement and regulation through the League of Nations. The armed forces of which we speak are a very uncertain basis for international friendship,
and those who deprecate ourselves and those who say that this country has less value as an ally to-day than it had in pre-War days or some other previous time are deceiving themselves. This country is more sought as a friend to-day than ever before, despite the existence of the National Government and despite the mistakes of that National Government. It is not our armed forces, it is not the exact conduct of our diplomats from day to day, but it is the lasting reputation of this country that makes friends for us in all parts of the world, and it is upon that reputation for sincerity and straight dealing that our security lies, not upon any possible addition to our armed forces or any possible attachment of any other armed body of people with whom we might be associated.
I would like the House to get away from this idea of dependence upon military preparation and to come back once again to the spirit and the hopes that were entertained yesterday, that there might be agreement in Europe. There is no real ground for disagreement in Europe at the present time. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) referred to the quarrels in the Balkan States, where the people suffer from age-long feuds which are very difficult to remove, but there is nothing in the state of the Balkans to-day to call for a resort to war by the larger nations of Europe, and there is nothing in any part of the world that would justify a resort to arms. I dislike very much these pessimistic utterances and conclusions drawn from the clear but very small and insignificant signs of disorder in the world. There were disorders in the large city of Paris last night, but anyone who would draw the conclusion from that fact that France is in a general state of confusion and not to be respected as a neighbour would be drawing an utterly false conclusion. There are difficulties in all parts of the world. We are exceptionally fortunate in being free from many of the difficulties which beset other people, but our responsibility is all the greater on that account, and we should be striving to give an example to the world and should resist the temptation to hark back to the old idea, the exploded and obsolete idea, that security can be found in armed force.
As a matter of fact, the world is more heavily armed to-day than ever before.
The world has never been so heavily armed as it is now, and if those who say that we are in danger of war are right, they must seek for some explanation, and that explanation is not to be found in insufficient armaments. It is to be found in some other cause, and that cause is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Wallhead) said, the economic difficulties, the unwillingness to face up to the economic problem, and the unwillingness to come to grips with a problem which is universal, and in particular a problem which afflicts all countries alike, and not one country only. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) referred to the changing habits of the people, and in arguing for an international police force he referred to the fact that the practice of duelling to settle private quarrels has now gone. That is not because we fear the law, it is not because there is a policeman in every street; it is because people's minds have changed. It is a moral disarmament. It is our social attributes that have come into greater play, and that is why, in the more highly civilised countries, duelling has been abolished. More progress of this kind must be achieved internationally, and the abolition of duelling between private individuals is a good augury for the prospective abolition of war between nations. If private quarrels can be settled without recourse to private force, then national quarrels can be settled without recourse to national force.
The hon. Member for Altrincham also said that international law must be under the authority of an international force, and I agree, but in all the discussions that I have heard in this House, and as long back as I can remember, alliances have partaken of the characteristic of international force, and whenever we entered into an alliance we surrendered partially; there is partial abnegation of our own sovereignty. If those who believe it is possible to have a balance of power, to have limited agreements between nations, to act together against some other body of nations, then they concede the possibility of the establistment of an international force and the possibility of the recognition of a super-national armed authority.
The hon. Member recalled his happy schooldays, and I am glad that he had
happy schooldays. Mine probably were much shorter than his and placed in less happy circumstances, but he found in school that the big boy, the strong boy, was an institution worth having in the school because he maintained peace by domination and by exercising authority over boys not so strong. But the hon. Gentleman said himself, and in so doing gave the case away, that so long as the big boy was a nice boy, things were all right. That is the trouble in the world. If the big boy is a nice boy, it is all right. If he has force, and that force is used wisely, it is not physical force, it is moral force, and what the world wants is the development, encouragement, and establishment of moral force between nations. Just as moral force has now to be applied between individuals belonging to the same nation, so must moral force be asserted as the real, ultimate force between the nations of the world.
I have promised to give way to one who is much more eloquent than I am and who will interest and, I am sure, benefit the House on this subject, but I would like, before sitting down, to ask the House once again to realise the terrible possibilities of a war that might come about as a result of rivalry in armaments. We all know that the destructive power of this country, our power to destroy life, is infinitely greater than it was before the last War broke out. Other countries are correspondingly stronger. Take, for example, Germany, which is supposed to be relatively badly armed. Germany has been disarmed and has not yet rearmed to our standard, but does anyone doubt that that great industrial country, with its resources in science and learning and mechanical experience, could in a very short time, in weeks or months, build up such resources, such material for war, as would stagger the world if put into operation. We can do the same thing. This country can build. We were building at the end of the last War, aeroplanes and their parts, and a larger Air Force than we now employ could have been built in a month when the last War came to an end.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does the hon. Member include ships in that observation?

Mr. GRENFELL: Ships will not play as large a part. The admiral will stick to
his ship. He will be left in his ship, and the battle will be fought very much better without him. It will be fought by people who can rise higher than the hon. and gallant Gentleman can. These armed forces are waiting to be brought into creation. The ordinary men and women in the street are, after all, the people who count. Diplomats and military and naval experts have been found wrong time and time again, and their mistakes have cost countries tragedy on a large scale. I would like to believe that the view of the man-in-the-street was taken and his interest considered, and I would like this country not to trifle with this idea of re-armament. Let us give all the strength and support we can to the Lord Privy Seal and those with him who are striving for an agreement which will ultimately lead, I hope, to disarmament among all the countries of the world. On this question of armies hon. Members do not do themselves justice. They argue as if we could build a certain number of ships and aeroplanes and have just sufficient number of men in uniform and make them drill for so much time each year, or have a standing army like ours enlisted in the service of the King for a fixed term, and that when we had all that, we were safe. Hon. Gentlemen delude themselves if they depend on that kind of protection.
Does not the House realise that the next war will be fought, not with arms? Not by any branch of the service will the war be decided. It will be decided by money, by the financial resources of countries, for war would be embarked on with expensive impedimenta and equipment—much more expensive than the simple weapons of former days. We were spending £8,000,000 a clay before the last War came to an end. We would be spending our millions from the first day of the next war. All the great industrial countries would be doing the same. How long does the House or any military expert think we can go on doing that kind of thing? With the huge burden of national debt which we now carry, and the huge burdens of debts saddled upon all the countries of the world, no army could give protection or enable any country to maintain operations. The crash would come in the financial centres in each of the countries. I beg the House not to entertain the idea of safety by arming, and not to give any encouragement
to the view abroad that we are entertaining an increase of armaments. I beg rather that a message should go forth from the House that the people of this country abhor the idea of warfare and the financial catastrophe and utter breakdown of society which would ensue upon war between civilised nations, and that we are determined to carry on the Resolution of yesterday, and extract from the Memorandum which is now the policy of the Government all the good that can be extracted from it, and to go on unceasingly with a real policy of disarmament which will bring real security to the world.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every one, I am sure, will share the admiration of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) for what he called moral disarmament, and his wish that, just as duelling has passed out of our minds in this country, so the idea of war may be banished from the minds of all the civilised nations of the world. We all share those sentiments which the hon. Member expressed in his agreeable speech. But, unhappily, when we look out upon the conditions of the world we see a very different picture, and not only a different picture, but tendencies which are running in a contrary direction—the immense stimulus to nationalistic ideas which is the characteristic and the main feature of modern times, taking the form of economic self-containment and of rivalries as fierce as any. All this rise of nationalistic ideas moves directly contrary to those pleasant and bright visions of society, in which the hon. Member indulges himself and has indulged us this evening. The movement is rather the other way. What is happening now is that all those grievances and injustices, to which the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal Benches referred, between the nations of Europe and in the Far East are unsolved or unredressed, and that meanwhile all over the world countries are arming.
Thus we have an entirely different situation from that which we would all like to see. We have an entirely different situation, or a very greatly changed situation, from the one which existed only a very few years ago. I remember in the days of the late Conservative Administration, when I had the honour of serving
under my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who is, I believe, going to reply on the Debate to-night, that we thought it right to take as a rule of guidance that there would be no major war within 10 years in which we should be engaged. Of course, such a rule can only be a very crude guidance to the military and naval chiefs who have to make their plans, and it had to be reconsidered prospectively at the beginning of each year. I believe that it was right in all the circumstances. With Locarno and the more mellow light which shone on the world at that time, with the hopes that were then very high, I think it was probably right to take that principle as a guide from day to day, and from year to year. No one could take that principle as a guide to-day. I am quite certain that any Cabinet, however pacific—and no one can impugn the peaceful desires of His Majesty's Government, except those who are divorced from the slightest desire for contact with truth—there is no Government, however pacific and peace-loving that could possibly arrange the basis of their naval and military organisation upon such an assumption as that. A new situation has been created, largely in the last few years, partly in the last three or four years, largely, I fear, by rubbing this sore of the Disarmament Conference until it has become a cancer, and also by the sudden uprush of Nazi-ism in Germany, with the tremendous covert armaments which are proceeding there to-day, to which the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), in a most interesting speech yesterday, drew our attention. He quoted figures, which may or may not be strictly accurate, but which now bear a very close relation to the grave underlying facts. That has changed the position very much indeed, and everyone sitting on the Government Bench knows how gravely the position has been changed. Only yesterday we defined once again our commitments to other countries. They are very serious commitments. The White Paper which we discussed yesterday contains a very grave sentence:
They have a right to expect that, if these provisions and pledges were solemnly entered into, they would not be lightly violated, and that any violation of them would be met in the most practical and effective way by immediately assembling
Governments and States in support of international peace and agreement against the disturber and the violator.
I think that those are very serious words to use in a document, and it would be most unwise for us to proceed with our diplomacy in one direction, and not make our necessary preparation in the other sphere. We had a speech yesterday from the late Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain)—one of his most lucid and powerful utterances—in which he dotted the i's and crossed the t's of this declaration, and pointed out that it was to be understood as a gentleman's agreement, as a declaration to be interpreted with a fine sense of honour; and there was no contradiction of any kind—could there have been?—from His Majesty's Government. At Birmingham this year, my right hon. Friend the Lord President went out of his way with great solemnity to issue a warning about the European situation, and he pointed out how strictly we should adhere to all the engagements into which we have entered. These are considerable facts, and we must consider our military, naval and aviation defence in relation to facts of this character.
An hon. Gentleman was asking what cause could arise for any dispute which we could have. We are engaged in demanding equality for armies, in imposing equality for armies as far as we can, upon the nations of the Continent—France, Germany, Poland and Italy. Suppose it is asked in a few years that there should be equality for navies, too? When the Government are asked about this, they say, "Oh, no, that would not apply; we should not agree to that." Suppose we are asked some time in the future to restore colonies for which we hold a mandate, the Government would say, "Certainly not; we should not open that question in any way." There are a lot of things which we will do and will not do, and this is one of the occasions when we may ask, What do we back our opinions with; what arrangements and force have we to summon behind these serious issues of opinion on which we declare our will and right? What happens, for instance, if, after we have equalised and reduced the army of France to the level of that of Germany, and got an equality for Germany, and
with all the reactions which will have followed in the sentiment of Europe upon such a change, Germany then proceeds to say, "How can you keep a great nation of 65,000,000 in the position in which it is not entitled to have a navy equal to the greatest of the fleets upon the seas?" You will say "No; we do not agree. Armiest—they belong to other people. Navies—that question affects Britain's interests and we are bound to say, 'No.'" But what position shall we be in to say that "No"?
Wars come very suddenly. I have lived through a period when one looked forward, as we do now, with great anxiety and great uncertainty to what would happen in the future. Suddenly something did happen—tremendous, swift, overpowering, irresistible. Let me remind the House of the sort of thing that happened in 1914. There was absolutely no quarrel between Germany and France. One July afternoon the German Ambassador drove down to the Quai d'Orsay and said to, I think, M. Viviani, the French Prime Minister: "We have been forced to mobilise against Russia, and war will be declared. What is to be the position of France?" The French Prime Minister made the answer, which his Cabinet had agreed upon, that France would act in accordance with what she considered to be her own interests. The Ambassador said, "You have an alliance with Russia, have you not?" "Quite so." said the French Prime Minister. And that was the process by which, in a few minutes, the area of the struggle, already serious in the East, was enormously widened and multiplied by the throwing in of the two great nations of the West on either side. But sometimes even a declaration of neutrality does not suffice. On this very occasion, as we now know, the German Ambassador was authorised by his Government, in case the French did not do their duty by their Russian ally, in case they showed any disposition to back out of the conflict which had been resolved on by the German nation, to demand that the fortresses of Toul and Verdun should be handed over to German troops as a guarantee that the French, having declared neutrality, would not change their mind at a subsequent moment.
That is how that great thing happened in our own lifetime, and I am bound to say that I cannot see in the present
administration of Germany any assurance they would be more nice-minded in dealing with a vital and supreme situation than was the Imperial Government of Germany, which was responsible for this procedure being adopted towards France. No, Sir, and we may, within a measurable period of time, in the lifetime of those who are here, if we are not in a proper state of security, be confronted on some occasion with a visit from an ambassador, and may have to give an answer in a very few hours; and if that answer is not satisfactory, within the next few hours the crash of bombs exploding in London and the cataracts of masonry and fire and smoke will warn us of any inadequacy which has been permitted in our aerial defences. We are vulnerable as we have never been before. I have often heard criticisms of the Liberal Government before the War. It is said that its diplomacy was not sufficiently clear and precise, that it wrapped things up in verbiage, that it ought to have said downright and plain what it would do, and there were criticisms about its lack of preparation, and so forth. All I can say is that a far graver case rests upon those who now hold power if, by any chance, against our wishes and against our hopes, trouble should come—a far graver case.
Not one of the lessons of the past has been learned, not one of them has been applied, and the situation is incomparably more dangerous. Then we had the Navy, and no air menace worth speaking of. Then the Navy was the "sure shield" of Britain. As long as it was ready in time and at its stations we could say to any foreign Government: "Well, what are you going to do about it? We will not declare ourselves. We will take our own line, we will work out our own course. We have no wish or desire to hurt anyone, but we shall not be pressed or forced into any hasty action unless we think fit or well." We cannot say that now. This cursed, hellish invention and development of war from the air has revolutionised our position. We are not the same kind of country we used to be when we were an island, only 20 years ago. That is the thing that is borne in upon me more than anything else. It is not merely a question of what we like and what we do not like, of ambitions and desires, of rights and interests, but it is a question of safety
and independence. That is what is involved now as never before.
I am going to mention only this, because I am not going to stand between the House and my right hon. Friend for more than a few minutes longer, but it does seem to me that there are three definite decisions which we should now take at once, and without any delay. The first affects the Army. We ought to begin the reorganisation of our civil factories so that they can be turned over rapidly to war purposes. All over Europe that is being done, and to an extraordinary extent—to an amazing extent. They are incomparably more efficient than anything that existed in the days of Prussian Imperialism before the War. Every factory in those countries is prepared to turn over to the production of some material for the deplorable and melancholy business of slaughter. What have we done? There is not an hour to lose. Those things cannot be done in a moment. The process should be started, and the very maximum of money that can be usefully spent should be spent from to-day on—if we act with wisdom.
Then there is the question of the Navy. For the Navy, at any rate, we should regain freedom of design. We should get rid of this London Treaty which has crippled us in building the kind of ships we want, and has stopped the United States from building a great battleship which she probably needed and to which we should have not had the slightest reason to object. It has forced us to spend some of our hard-earned, poor money—the little there is for these purposes—unwisely. It has forced us to take great ships which would have been of enormous utility in convoying vessels bearing food to these islands and to sink them in the ocean, when they bad 10 to 15 years of useful life in them. We must regain our freedom at the earliest possible moment, and we shall be helped in doing so by the fact that another of the parties to that Treaty is resolved to regain her freedom, too. Then there is the air. I cannot conceive how, in the present state of Europe and of our position in Europe we can delay in establishing the principle of having an Air Force at least as strong as that of any Power that can get at us. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It would only begin to put us back to the position in which we were brought up. We have lived under the
shield of the Navy. To have an Air Force as strong as the air force of France or Germany, whichever is the stronger, ought to be the decision which Parliament should take, and which the National Government should proclaim.
There is only one other point which I venture to mention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—and that is the co-ordination of the three Services. A right hon. Friend of mine, the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), yesterday asked the Prime Minister a very pertinent question as to the allocation of money between the three Fighting Services. I doubt very much whether, at this stage, there is room for economy in any of them, but at any rate it would be advantageous, in my opinion, if the problem were studied from a central point of view, because things are changing very much. The emphasis should be thrown here or there, according to the needs of modern conditions, but there should be much more effective co-ordination than now exists. I ask my right hon. Friend when he replies, after consulting with the Leader of the House, to say that sometime in this Session the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence should be put down—the Prime Minister's salary, or whatever is the Vote—so that we can have a discussion on the three Services combined. It would be a very valuable discussion, one such as has frequently been allowed in previous years, and was never more necessary than at the present time.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Captain Loder) has moved an Amendment to the Motion asking us to await the result of the White Paper. I see no great harm in the House placing some hopes in the White Paper, but grave harm if that is going to delay the necessary provision for security at home in the meanwhile. Who believes that the proposals of the White Paper will prove acceptable; for instance, that France, which has now between 700,000 and 800,000 men, is going to reduce her forces in Europe to the level of those of Poland, to an equality with those of Germany? Who can say that our proposals will gain any acceptance on the Continent of Europe? The Government can make their effort, if they like, they can then say they have done it, but they cannot justify delaying necessary action
in the sphere of defence until they get the answers, which will be given, no doubt very politely—to the Lord Privy Seal when he embarks on his peregrinations round the capitals of Europe. We cannot delay for that. Therefore, if my hon. and gallant Friend were to go to a Division, I should vote for the Motion and against this temporising, vaporising, paralysing Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend opposite has put down, I believe at the instigation of the Government.
I think that the responsibility of His Majesty's Government is very grave indeed, and there is this which makes it all the graver: It is a responsibility which they have no difficulty in discharging if they choose. We are told they have to wait for public opinion, that they must bring that along and must be able to assure the good people here that everything is being done with the most pacific intentions—they must make a case. But they do not need to do anything like that, and nothing like that can stand between them and their responsibility to the Crown and Parliament for the safety and security of the country. The Government command overwhelming majorities in both branches of the Legislature. Nothing will be denied to them that they ask. They have only to make their proposals, and they will be supported in them. Let them not suppose that if they make proposals, with confidence and conviction, for the safety of the country that their countrymen will not support them as they have always done at every moment. Why take so poor a view of the great patriotic support which this nation gives to those who, it feels, are doing their duty by it? I cannot feel that at the present time the Government are doing their duty in these matters of defence, and particularly in respect of the air. It seems to me that while we are becoming ever more entangled in the European situation, and while we are constantly endeavouring to weaken, relatively, our friends upon the Continent of Europe, we nevertheless are left exposed to a mortal thrust, and are deprived of that sense of security and independence upon which the civilisation of our island has been built.

7.0 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has been
able to come down to-day and give us a characteristic and very powerful speech, bringing to our attention a great many things that we ought to attend to. I suppose that he and I have had as much responsibility, or almost as much, as any two men, certainly for events up to four years ago. We have worked together on these problems, and any contribution that he makes in the possession of greater freedom and less responsibility is bound to have weight, not only from the gift which he possesses in his ability to make his case, but also from the great positions in the State which he has held. I, for one, am glad that this Debate has taken place as a complementary Debate to that of yesterday. The House yesterday, in a very admirable Debate, was almost unanimous in its approval of what the Government were trying to do. I take no exception to the fact that by a curious chance it so happens that to-day we are discussing matters of the gravest import and which have a very close relation to those which we were discussing from a rather different angle yesterday.
I want first of all to correct one or two phrases which were used by my hon. Friends in their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), in a speech which I thought was of great interest, of excellent temper and full of sound sense, spoke about our national pride being sapped; and the Seconder, in another very interesting speech, spoke about the Government pursuing a policy of expediency. In my view there is neither expediency on the part of the Government nor any sapping of the national character or pride. That I do not believe for a moment. Let me try to illustrate the position as I see it. All of us who are middle-aged will remember, in the years before the War, that whatever might have been thought by certain military students and possibly some men in public life, the majority of the country believed that war was impossible. That was the national atmosphere; the country swung from it in a day in 1914, and for four years there was no more military nation than this. Nothing could have been more wonderful than the unity, courage, endurance, and perseverance of the country. Then, in 1918, we entered on the sixteen most difficult years through which this country has ever passed, or through which any Government—and many have had a try—
has had to pilot the country. What was the era into which we were entering? We were an impoverished nation; we had lost a large number of the most virile of our population; we could have had no idea then what the effects of the strain of war were and would be, not only on the men who had fought but on many of the civil population. We had to get the men back to work who had been at the Front, a Herculean job, and there was not always work for them. We had to face immense difficulties at home and immense difficulties abroad. Every nation had its domestic problems. We have had domestic problems with which the different Governments have been wrestling through all these years, not always with success.
During these years it has seemed impossible that war should come again. We did not think that it was impossible before the War from horror of what war meant; we simply thought war was out-of-date. The feeling after the War was begotten of the knowledge of what it was. So it came about that in what time they could spare from wrestling with their domestic problems, the statesmen of Europe set to work to try, through the League of Nations, to effect a measure of working together and of disarmament, and to get a new method of consultation, so that the method so graphically described by my right hon. Friend as taking place at the Quai d'Orsay might be a thing of the past. Everyone here will admit, whether he thinks now that success in achieving that object is possible or not, that it was no unworthy object for Europe to discuss and to struggle for.
Here, however, I must say that the facts have struck some hard blows at Europe. As a matter of fact, and I say it with no criticism, there was no more reeling blow struck at this new attempt in Europe than when the American Congress refused to support President Wilson. At that time, when people's wounds, as it were, were still bleeding from the War, to France, who had been the principal sufferer, security was essential in which to restore her shattered nerves. That security which she thought she had got from President Wilson disappeared in a moment. That has made as many, if not more, difficulties than anything else in Europe by always bringing up the question of security; and the
question of security is an infinitely difficult problem with which to deal.
We are making an attempt to deal now with that problem, and that is what the House was discussing yesterday. For good or for ill, in a very short time we shall know whether we may look for success or not. If I may just go back to yesterday and say what we are looking for, we are looking for something which will prevent that dreadful alternative of no agreement of any kind. We are trying to get an ordered armament, a limitation. That in itself, as we all know, carries with it many difficulties, and brings a problem which was discussed yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), about the rule of law in Europe. But, as was well pointed out by another speaker—I think to-day—the rule of law involves sanctions, and it is sanctions that brings the man into the law court. Sooner or later Europe will have to face that fact, and it is going to be an extraordinarily difficult question. But she will face it, in my view, with more success if we have succeeded in bringing about a convention on the lines of our White Paper. With an equality there should be, for everybody's sake, a much better chance of getting what we all want.
While I am speaking I will just diverge for one moment to two questions that were mentioned yesterday. I wish to throw out a word of warning about them, because they come in connection with these agreements and also with regard to limitation of armaments and sanctions. Much too light a use is made, especially among those who belong to a very different school of thought from that to which I belong, of the word "blockade." People talk lightly about blockading a country as an economic sanction. An economic sanction is very difficult to bring into effect without blockade. Blockade is an act of war, and any country, unless it is absolutely impotent, which you blockade will fight you for it. That, I think, is a fundamental consideration which should be recognised when one is speaking about blockades.
I wish also to utter a caution about budgetary limitations. I know that the idea of budgetary limitations appeals to many hon. Members of this House, and I do not say that it is impossible to
achieve something by it. Nevertheless, I want the House to remember one or two difficulties about it. I have not been into all the figures of other countries, but I would hazard this opinion: that in no country, at any rate in no European country, has the cost of the fighting services been so much increased as our own by the pay of the personnel. That throws out of relation all comparisons between those other countries and our own. I am going to do what I very rarely do: Inflict on the House a few figures on that point which I have taken out with great care. Hon. Members may also be glad to have them, because they put succinctly the reductions which we have made in personnel and, therefore, fall in with many of the arguments that have been used to-day.
The figures are not many, but they are very interesting. The pay charge for the Fighting Services in the Estimates for last year is compared with the charge in 1914–15, which was a few months before the War broke out; I leave out the odd hundreds of thousands. In 1914 it was £12,000,000 for the Navy, £13,000,000 for the Army, and nothing for the Air Force. Last year it was £15,500,000 for the Navy, £17,000,000 for the Army, and £5,250,000 for the Air Force. That includes all pay and allowances for service personnel but not for civilians. The increase in the 19 years was 52.75 per cent. But remember this. The service personnel in 1914 in the Navy was 146,000, and last year it was 89,000. In the Army it was 172,750, and last year 141,000. In the Air Force it was nothing, and last year 29,500. There has therefore been a decline of 18.5 per cent., and the cost per man in the fighting services has risen from £78 10s. in 1914 to £147 2s. last year, an increase of 87 per cent.
When, moreover, you remember that we are almost alone among the Great Powers in having to spend a large sum on our Fighting Services Estimates for coaling stations, fuelling stations, and harbours all over the world, such items as do not appear in the accounts of many countries, you will get some idea of the reservations that have to be made, and of the difficulty, quite apart from the currency difficulties which were referred to yesterday, which will be found in making a fair and equitable comparison between our actual costs and the costs in other countries. It is no mere
obstruction on the part of this Government that we have always welcomed, perhaps rather lukewarmly, suggestions of budgetary limitations. I want the House to realise that there are real difficulties in that matter, and that such objections as we have put forward have not been objections put forward merely for obstructive purposes, but that we do see very real difficulties in coming to conclusions which would be of service.
I want to say a few words about an observation which fell from the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). His line was that we were bound to have a war. I do not think that we are at all bound to have a war.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I think that I argued that, from the speeches I have listened to, I came to the conclusion that we were bound to have a war.

Mr. BALDWIN: One could come to a different conclusion every day, if one argues that way. I do not accept that inference, and I do not draw that lesson from the speeches which I have heard. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was talking in his eloquent way about the dangers of war in the future. What are the causes of war? It has been well said, among those who have studied history, that the commonest causes of war have been dynastic and religious, and the question of boundaries. Of course dynastic wars were very often mixed up with boundary wars because the dynasty wanted to enlarge its boundary, and in those days the dynastic claim was the easiest one to raise. I do not suppose anyone in this House expects to see another dynastic war, or another religious war. That leaves boundaries. There, I think, is a question of danger. I use the word "boundary" in a very comprehensive sense. It may not only be a boundary which a nation may feel has been wrongly drawn, owing to many of their nationals being on what is, to them, the wrong side of that boundary, but it may be an economic boundary. You may have the boundaries of existing countries—this I think is the great danger in the next generation—strained by the growth of population, and those boundaries may break.
In all the attempts which we have made—and Heaven knows, at the
moment, the outlook is not peculiarly cheerful—to keep the League of Nations together, and which we are going to make, we hope and we believe that it is possible that these questions of difference of a nature that may lead to war—and the only questions that are left to-day that may lead to wars in the future are those which above all would have been impossible as dynastic or religious questions—should be soluble by rational means, if taken in time, if the danger is seen, and if the statesmen of Europe can see some years beforehand where the danger spot is likely to grow, so that we may avoid what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, in his picturesque way, has described as "the rubbing and the irritation of a sore."
That is work for which the League was intended and for which the League can be and must be used. I am quite convinced that the present Government, and I believe any other Government that might take its place drawn from any part of the House, when they were up against it, as you are when you are in the Government, will do all in their power to maintain Geneva and the League, and sympathetically to make such alterations, if they be convinced of the necessity for those alterations, as may make for greater harmony among the nations of Europe.
If we fail, there is no need for me here to say a word to the House of the dangers of that situation, but I would say this: If we do fail, the Government will feel that their duty is to look after the interest of this country first and quickly. If agreement be come to, it is a much simpler problem. We then, in common with the other partners in the Agreement have limits up to which we can arm. It should be our duty to make ourselves as competent as we may up to that limit, because with equality of armaments you will find that that is what every nation will do. It is what, after all, every nation must do if it is to make itself fit to be the partner and the colleague of the nations, when the time comes when sanctions may have to be enforced. These things lie in the future, but I see them clearly and I see them whole. We have not yet settled how we can get this form of international law among the nations where war is concerned.
It is perfectly clear that it can only be got ultimately by force, and the great problem for Europe will be to see how that doctrine is to be adopted.
I have told the House quite frankly how I regard this matter. It can be but a short time, as I said earlier in my speech, before we shall know whether the prospect is favourable for our Draft or whether it is going to end in failure. I have told the House what the position will be if it fails and what the position will be if an agreement is reached. After the Debate that we had yesterday and which has probably gone out to all the world, and after the admirable Debate to-day which has but put before the country problems which the country will have to face and face soon—there is no doubt about that—I hope that my hon. Friend who moved this Motion and his friends may see fit not to divide the House upon it. I believe that the Debate will have done good; I am sure of it, but this is by far the gravest question that we can discuss, and we have only had four hours' debate. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was one which he compressed, but, argued and delivered, it would have taken more than an hour, and it would certainly have taken more than an hour to answer it. These questions cannot be gone into in a discussion of this kind. They will be more suited to the discussion for which he asked—and I will bring his request to the notice of the Prime Minister. I have had the honour and pleasure of taking part in similar Debates in the past, and I always feel that they serve a useful purpose.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman means the Debate on the Committee of Imperial Defence?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes. That is what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. If the Mover of the Motion sees fit not to press this question, to a division, I believe that that will increase, instead of diminish, the influence of the very question which he wished to bring to the notice of the public. That would take away any appearance of discord or
difference of opinion. Fundamentally there is agreement about it in every way, and I think that that course would at this moment be for the best.

7.26 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I desire, with the leave of the House, in the few minutes that remain to make an immediate and vehement protest against certain passages in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He to-day has declared—I do not go into the whole question which he raised about the immediate necessities of the national defence—in favour of resuming, as he called it, our freedom, with respect to naval armaments, that we should take the earliest opportunity of tearing up all agreements for the restriction of shipbuilding, and that the world should be set free once more to engage in an unrestricted race of naval armament.
The right hon. Gentleman and myself were Members of the pre-War Cabinets which had the duty, the most painful and unwelcome duty for us, of increasing expenditure upon the naval armaments of this country by 40 per cent. in a few years. It was essential, and it was done. When the right hon. Gentleman was First Lord of the Admiralty he proposed to Germany a naval holiday, in order that that monstrous but inevitable waste of the resources of both countries should be avoided. Now he is proceeding in precisely the opposite direction, when we have to some extent a naval holiday, and when we were able, by the Washington Treaty and the London Treaty, to stop the unrestricted race of naval armaments which was about to proceed. He would reject all that advantage, and he declares that we should resume our freedom.
If we resume our freedom, everybody else resumes freedom. Japan resumes her freedom, and every country will be compelled to build ship against ship, again involving an enormous expenditure
of the resources of the world. These things are relative, and the strength of any navy depends upon the strength of other navies. If we secure a general agreement to reduce all navies and to stop this race, surely it is an advantage to all mankind. If every country were to double its armaments, no country would be stronger than it was before, and every country would be poorer than it was
before. In fact, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman may be summed up in these words, that he would raise a cry of "Long live anarchy, and let us all go rattling down to ruin together."

7.28 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I just want to remind the House, in the short time that remains, that in those days to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has referred, the country owed a lasting debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who, when he had failed to bring about a holiday in building with Germany, was one of the few realists who understood the peril and took steps to meet it, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen and his leader in the same year was telling us that never had there been a better opportunity for reducing our Fleet power.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The whole Cabinet was agreed.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: The House has, I think, been profoundly moved by the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and those of us who have taken some part in cultivating public opinion in the past on the question of defence are grateful for what he has said. We all agree that the speech of the Lord President of the Council is one which should make a very strong appeal to the House. I only wish that he had been in a position to say that he could accept some of the proposals and suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. We have been living largely in a fool's paradise for a considerable time.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the serious increase in the number of road accidents during the past year, and is of opinion that most active steps should be taken which would conduce to greater safety for all users of the road.
Hon. Members may think that perhaps the subject of this Motion is a little in-
opportune, in view of the fact that the Minister has promised us legislation in the near future; but I make no apology for bringing forward the Motion, because I think the country is greatly concerned with the problem of road transport, and the correspondence which I have received in connection with my Motion indicates the enormous amount of importance which people are attaching to the perils of the road at the present time. Although I may have to weary myself in acknowledging these letters to-morrow, I am not going to weary the House by reading their contents, beyond quoting from one of them which I have here. It begins:
Do please cry aloud and spare not.
It goes on to refer to motoring as
the most cruel and bloody sport since the days of Nero.
It ends on a rather more pleasant note by wishing me Godspeed in this Debate, and then the writer says:
and may God bless you in your efforts.
I am going to take, I hope, a rather wider view than is indicated by the statement of the writer of that letter. I think that the House must realise, and that the country must realise, that the roads belong to all users of the roads. To my way of thinking, it is no argument to say that, because pedestrians have used the roads from time immemorial, the roads belong to them; and in the same way it is no argument to say that, because the motorists pay largely for the upkeep of the roads at the present time, the roads largely belong to them. In considering the very grave problem which we have to face at the present time in connection with the increase of road accidents, we have to apply our minds very seriously to the contributory causes which are responsible for road accidents nowadays. In my opinion these road accidents are largely due to lack of uniformity. So many of the regulations that we have are local in operation instead of national, and, with the exception of the elimination of dust from the roads, matters appertaining to road management at the present time are in much the same state as they were some 50 years ago.
Among the most important of the contributory factors leading to road accidents at the present time is the question of lighting. This is due to the fact that there is no uniformity whatsoever in regard
to the lighting of our towns and suburban districts throughout the country. I know that on the No. 27 omnibus route in London, which runs from Highgate to Twickenham, a distance of some 20 miles, there are no fewer than 28 systems of lighting. The importance of more co-ordination with regard to the lighting of our roads is borne out in the Preliminary Report on Fatal Road Accidents for the six months ending on the 30th June, 1933, on page 4 of which there is the statement that:
The period of accidents reached a further marked peak between the hours of 10 and 11 p.m.
It goes on to say that this is the fourth most fatal hour of the 24. As another illustration of the lack of uniformity, I will take the road from Piccadilly Circus leading up the Watford By-pass for 14¾ miles. If hon. Members would take the trouble to drive over that road they would discover that on it there are 10 different lighting authorities. One authority on one side of the road lights with electricity; on the opposite side another authority lights the road with gas. Even the lamp standards vary in height above the ground from 12 feet to upwards of 20 feet.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give the House still another illustration with regard to this important problem of lighting. I have here a copy of the "Eastbourne Gazette" for the 20th December of last year, containing a report of a case in which a motorist happened unfortunately to run into a cyclist, who subsequently died, and the motorist was tried for manslaughter. It came out in the evidence that the Grand Parade at Eastbourne, where the accident occurred, had less light on it in the winter months than it had in the summer months. It appeared from the evidence that, because there were fewer visitors to Eastbourne in the winter, the local corporation thought it was not necessary to have the same amount of light in the winter months as in the summer months. In that case the local corporation took no account whatsoever of the fact that in the winter months there were more hours of darkness than in the summer months, and that therefore there was a greater need for beneficial light. The learned judge, in summing up, used these words:
Here we have had evidence of an accident, and that is all, in a road which, by the action of the Corporation of Eastbourne, is made into a difficult and dangerous road—a road which seems almost designed, by reason of its light and dark patches, to confuse people.
It is deplorable that such a state of affairs should exist—that it is possible in this 20th century for any local authority to make a decision such as the Eastbourne Corporation made last year, which resulted, not only in an innocent man being sent to the Assizes, but also in the death of an unfortunate pedal cyclist.
I consider that the second most important contributory factor in connection with road accidents is the question of the road surface. Hon. Members who drive their own motor cars will know that you can go between two points and find several different types of surface. In one place you get a nice rough surface where there is very little skidding, but elsewhere you may find a section of road which is almost like glass, and on which it is perilous to drive on a damp or frosty night. I should have liked to see, in the Preliminary Report on Fatal Road Accidents, to which I have already referred, on the page where the main and contributory causes of fatal road accidents are stated, a paragraph stating the type of road surface on which most of these accidents occurred.
I do not want to weary the House with a technical discussion of the differences to be found in the various types of road surface, but hon. Members will probably know that most of the surfacing materials used on roads are composed largely of bitumen or tar. Bitumen, which is a product of oil, lasts somewhere about three years. Tar has a slightly shorter life—some people will say six or nine months shorter than that of bitumen. But, owing to the composition of the bitumen, the longer it remains down the more the oil in the bitumen tends to come to the surface and envelop the road chips, leaving a dangerous glassy, skiddy surface. The tar, on the other hand, wears away regularly, and leaves the same rough surface as when the chips were originally put in the tar. It may be that the slightly longer life of bitumen is a factor which influences county road surveyors up and down the country to use bitumen. After all, their principal object is to look after the roads with the least possible expenditure to the rates of their authorities, but
I suggest that while these road surveyors, by using bitumen in preference to tar, are safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers in the matter of expenditure, they do not have to pay for the coffins of the unfortunate people who may be killed as a result of surfacing the roads with material which is very slippery.
Among the lesser contributory causes of road accidents at the present time is the lack of adequate signposts up and down the country, particularly at junctions and where two main roads happen to cross. One often sees motorists going along, seeing these forked roads in front of them and not being quite certain whether to take the right fork or the left. They dither about on the road, possibly drive more or less straight for the signpost, or, having wasted half a minute in deciding where they want to go, perhaps without looking drive along the right or the left fork. Very often, as a result of this inadequate signposting, accidents occur at road junctions. The Minister may say in reply that as regards signposts he has already adequate powers under the Road Traffic Act, and all I can say is that I hope he will use those powers to the very fullest extent.
While on the question of signposts, I would like to refer to the very inadequate signposting on by-pass roads. I am told that the North Circular Road around London is a glaring example of bad signposting. I know that in Yorkshire we have two by-pass roads on the main road from Doncaster to Sheffield, which are beautifully signposted at the beginning, but when you get along the by-pass road you get completely lost, and at the present time it is quicker to drive through the streets of the densely populated area between Rotherham and Sheffield, among trams, children and numbers of people, than to drive on these two by-pass roads, which are supposed to cut out a great deal of that area. I think it is wrong that such a state of affairs should exist. These by-pass roads cost a great deal of money, and they ought in my opinion to be used by motorists, but motorists cannot be expected to use by-pass roads if they are not adequately signposted, not merely at the commencement but throughout the whole length of the by-pass road.
Having dealt with some of the contributory causes of road accidents, may
I now make a few suggestions to the Minister which, I hope, may be helpful to him in coming to a decision, as he will have to do before he institutes legislation. I make them as one who has had a good deal of experience as a road user in many categories. I frequently use the roads as a pedestrian. Only the other day I cycled to this House on a pedal cycle. While I claim to be a cyclist, I cannot claim to have the same knowledge of cycling as the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Wills), who, I believe, is the only Member of the House who is a life member of the Cyclists' Touring Club. I can claim experience as a road user in other directions. For some four years I had the regular weekly experience of acting as a cattle drover, driving cattle seven miles to market. As a motorist, I can claim to drive a good many thousand miles a year.
I put forward these suggestions not looking at it merely from the viewpoint of a pedestrian or a motorist, but from the general viewpoint of what I believe is the outlook of the average person who uses the roads. There ought to be a great deal more co-ordination between highways committees and local education committees. I have a letter here with regard to a new elementary school that is going to be built on the Tilbury and Southend arterial road. It is proposed to be erected adjoining a section of the main road where in the last five years there have been over 140 accidents. If there was more co-ordination between local education and highways committees it might be possible to build new schools in places not so dangerous as this.
I should like to see a little co-operation between the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office. We ought to consider having police weather reports posted in the principal towns and changed every eight hours or so, so that it would be possible for a motorist, let us say at Grantham, to go to a certain place in the town and see an official report with regard to weather conditions within an area, say, of 20 miles. A great deal of motor traffic is long-distance traffic and people may arrive at a place like Grantham at three o'clock in the afternoon probably going further North. The weather may be quite desirable for motoring at Grantham, while 20 or 30 miles ahead there may be very thick fog. If there were such a system of weather
reports, a great many motorists would remain where they were rather than proceed into the foggy area.
I welcome the statement of the Minister last week that he anticipated spending money on educational work and propaganda. I would like to stress the importance of propaganda work in our schools. Not only is it desirable to educate children in knowledge of the road code, but it is essential to bear in mind that they will be the road users of the future. I should also like the Minister to consider giving a challenge shield to the local county authority which has the minimum number of accidents. I should like to see a county like Lincolnshire advertise "Motor in Lincolnshire where the roads are safe." I should like to see a slogan used like that for propaganda purposes in the same way as I have my own propaganda slogan—"Build your factory at Penistone where the rates are low and the water supply abundant."
I should like to see public opinion pulling its weight in trying to deal with road accidents and demanding from motor manufacturers details of the braking capabilities of their cars. The manufacturers will tell you how fast a car goes and how many lights it has. If we could only encourage public opinion to demand that they should give a detailed specification, in language which an ordinary road user like myself would understand, and tell us how long a particular car would take to pull up at a given speed, it might do much to improve the standard of brakes on motor cars.
Another factor that ought to be tackled is electric signs on shops. A motorist often sees shops with what I believe are called neon signs, using the same colours as those of the automatic traffic signals, which are often only a foot or two higher than the traffic signals themselves. The point is mentioned in the report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Lights, and they recommend that very much greater authority and power should be given to local authorities to deal with electric signs near the traffic signals. We also have to consider the position of the pedal cyclist. There are many fiat areas in the country where hundreds of people cycle in from the villages to the towns to their work each day, and those who use that very healthy
and cheap form of locomotion ought to be assured of a reasonably safe place to cycle in. At present the wretched cyclist is always being frightened by the hoot of an electric horn and is very often forced into the ditch or into the kerbstone. We should consider the placing of special cycling tracks at the side of main roads, as in Continental countries, particularly Holland.
We should have some uniform regulations with regard to the overtaking of tramcars. I am told that no corporation has definite powers to say whether or not a motor shall pass a tramcar, or whether it shall pass on this side or on the opposite side. A great many local customs have grown up. I believe in Bradford they are supposed to pass on the off-side and in Sheffield you are not supposed to pass a stationary tram. In Newcastle you have the added difficulty that a great many trams are front exit cars. Local users of the trams and local motorists know the customs, and those who use the trams expect that every motorist knows them, but we have to consider through traffic and the people who make a breach of a custom which they know nothing about. For the six months ending June last year no fewer than five deaths were definitely attributable to people overtaking trams and, if there had been some national regulation on the point, those people would be alive to-day.
I do not think any legislation will be of any real use unless all road users are made to conform to them. People must not only be made to realise that it is an offence to drive to the danger of the public, but it should be an offence to walk to the danger of the public. Where adequate and properly surfaced footpaths are provided, the pedestrian should by law be compelled to use them. Suggestions have been put forward with regard to compulsory crossing places and subways in congested places in large towns. I do not think that the mentality of the English people is in favour of subways. How many Members of the House, when leaving at night and desiring to take an omnibus in Whitehall, use the subway at the Parliament Square end? If I saw more of my hon. Friends in that subway, I might be led to believe that subways might be a useful method of getting pedestrians from one side of the road to the other.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: There is special protection for us.

Mr. GLOSSOP: We have also to try to provide protection for the less fortunate people who have not the privilege of membership of this House. There have been suggestions in another place that we should have a compulsory test before the issue of a motoring licence. I think that would be absolutely useless. Any ordinary sensible person can drive a car quite capably after two or three hours' tuition, and all those people would be able to qualify for a licence. It is only six, seven or eight weeks after, according to the amount of mileage driven, when the new motorist thinks he has control of his vehicle, and a sudden emergency arises, that it is possible to tell whether he is going to be a menace or otherwise to his fellow users of the road.
I expect we shall hear during the Debate that there should be a reimposition of the speed limit. I believe that would be a most retrograde step. You may get a section of the road where, perhaps, a maximum speed limit of 15 miles an hour is safe during certain periods of the day, while at others it would be criminal to drive at more than five miles an hour. You may get other sections of the road where it is quite safe, in certain weather conditions and at certain times of the day, to drive at 60 miles an hour. A suitable speed limit in certain conditions cannot take into account the varying factors of the amount of traffic, lighting conditions, weather conditions and the road surface itself. I fear that, if the Government were to introduce legislation which might result in the reimposition of a speed limit, it would mean that once again motorists, seeing that a certain speed limit were allowed, would believe that it was a safe one, and there would be a tendency throughout the country for people to drive to the maximum of the speed limit allowed instead of, as at the present time, having to use their own judgment and discretion, knowing perfectly well that if they offend they will have the law coming upon them.
I think that there is need for the rigid enforcement of existing laws, and that many accidents take place which are pure accidents and which, under our existing road conditions, are unavoidable. I do not think that legislation will remedy the
present state of affairs, unless at the same time we are prepared to deal with the main causes contributing to road accidents. I do not think that further legislation will be of any use until we have a more modern and a more national method of dealing with our road system, and until we educate every member of the general public into appreciating and valuing the road code and developing a strong road sense. It was, I think, in 1880 that Disraeli said that an insular country subject to fogs, with a strong middle-class, required a great statesman. It is only necessary to alter that remark very slightly and say that an insular country subject to fogs, with a large motor power, requires a great statesman, a Minister of Transport, who will take his courage in both hands and try and take a wide view with regard to the great problems which this country will have to face in the future, and the safety of all persons who use the road.

8.3 p.m.

Captain WATT: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) upon his admirable and interesting speech. I am sure that the House is indebted to him for his choice of Motion and for bringing forward this subject at the present time. The question of road accidents and their reduction has recently, and quite rightly, received a good deal of publicity largely owing to the alarm which is felt in all quarters at the disquieting increase in the number of serious accidents on our roads. This has resulted in attention being focused upon the causes and the remedies, and, although we are all agreed as to the seriousness of the situation and as to the urgency for remedial steps, there is a wide variation of opinion as to the best solution or solutions. The whole subject of safety on the roads is one of great complexity, and if we are to be constructive in our criticisms and our suggestions, we must treat the matter dispassionately. What is required is a road traffic policy which goes far beyond the antagonisms of pedestrians and motorists, or any other sectional interest.
The urgent need is for a far-reaching programme not only to make the roads safer now, but to ensure that the yearly increase of traffic and traffic units in the
future will not mean a corresponding increase in the number of accidents. We have to bear in mind that traffic in this country is increasing at an amazing rate. Since 1926–7 the number of motors in use on our roads has increased from 1,689,000 to 2,241,000 in 1932–33, which is roughly at the rate of 80,000 a year. In all probability this rate of increase will continue seven more rapidly during the years which are just about to come owing to the return to prosperity and the improvement in the standard of living. Increased prosperity will mean that there will be more private cars, motor cycles and pedal cycles on the roads, and also a greater distribution by road of manufactured and other goods. There is, therefore, a grave danger of the problem becoming more acute. If no solution is reached, the disquieting increase in road accidents and the terrible effect on the life and limbs of the people is likely to continue and to increase also.
The total recorded accidents in 1933 which resulted in death or permanent injury were 181,829, the number of persons killed being 7,125—an average of 20 a day—while the number of persons injured was 216,401—an average of 592 a day. The most alarming feature of those statistics is that they all show a substantial increase over the figures of 1932 and the preceding years. No wonder the public is alarmed and is asking that something should be done, and done quickly, to stop this dreadful toll of life and limb on our roads. It has been estimated that since the War about 2,000,000 men, women and children have been killed or injured on the roads of Great Britain, that is roughly about 75 per cent. of the total British casualties during the Great War. It is really appalling to consider that there were more than four times as many casualties on the roads in Great Britain last year as there were during the 2₽ years of the South African War, when the total casualties on the British side only amounted to 52,000 people. It is interesting to note also that in the years 1929 to 1931 the total of killed alone exceeded the number of British soldiers killed during the 22 years of the Napoleonic Wars. I apologise to the House for making these perhaps obvious comparisons, but they serve to bring the staggering figures in regard to road
accidents more forcibly to the mind of the most disinterested person.
We all understand the position and are agreed that the problem is to make the movement of millions of traffic units, including pedestrians, less dangerous; but it is with regard to the causation of accidents and the remedial measures that we differ, and we find various modes of approach to the desired conditions of safety. The motorists, on the one hand, consider, among other things, that what is required is a more strict and a more universal observance of the Highway Code, a more rigid enforcement of the existing motor laws, and perhaps some considerable development in traffic control, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone mentioned, the general use of non-skid roads. The pedestrians, on the other hand, believe that what is wanted is a greater severity of punishment for persons convicted of road traffic misdemeanours, and the reintroduction of speed limits, either general or local, and a proper driving test for potential drivers. In all these suggestions there is undoubtedly a modicum of remedy, and if most of them were to be incorporated in the proposed legislation and accompanied by a National Safety First Compaign, using all the modern agencies of publicity, there is no doubt that the danger of accidents would be considerably minimised. Even without new legislation, most of these suggestions could be carried out under the existing laws, particularly the more general observance of the Highway Code and also the question of greater penalties under the Road Traffic Act.
It seems to me that we already have sufficiently strong penalties under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and that what is wanted is a more rigid enforcement of those rules. If I read to the House from the relevant sections of that Act it will perhaps illustrate the point which I am making. It is laid down in Section 11 that if any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, that person if convicted summarily is liable to a penalty not exceeding £50 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months. Particulars of the punishment have to be endorsed on his licence. In Section 12 similar provisions are laid down to deal with a person who is simply a careless driver—
who is driving without due care and attention. In any case, if the magistrate considers that the offence is greater than a misdemeanour and is actually a felony, it may mean that the offence may be one of manslaughter or even of murder. Surely, those penalties are heavy enough. What is required is that those penalties should be carried out more rigidly.
With regard to driving tests, before obtaining a licence, we are assured by the Preliminary Report on Fatal Accidents that there are very few accidents due to inexpert drivers, the reason for this being that these drivers are usually extremely careful because of their lack of experience. It is only when they feel more confident that the trouble begins. It seems extraordinary that a person without any adequate training in the driving of a car can, as soon as he possesses one, take it out on to the public highway. I can understand that it might be argued that a driving test or a test in road sense, or in the knowledge of the Highway Code, or of signals ought to be imposed, but I doubt very much if that would be worth the trouble and the expense. After all, this is only a very small matter, and only touches the fringe of the problem, as do many of those other suggestions of non-skid roads and speed limits and so forth.
I agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Motion that to introduce a general speed limit would be a retrograde step, though I think that a case can be made out for a minimum of local speed limits which might apply to the more dangerous spots, such as dangerous corners, passing schools, and built-up areas. A general speed limit if it were to have the effect that its advocates desired, would have to be a very low one indeed, and that, in my view, would be a tremendous blow to motoring and progress in this country, while at the same time it would increase the congestion owing to the slower movement of vehicles and give rise to those exact conditions which predispose to accidents.
All these suggestions might help to mitigate the problem, but the fundamental trouble is that the bulk of our roads and streets were not made to carry such vast numbers of fast moving vehicles. The roads to-day are heavily overcrowded and therefore we must try and provide pedestrians and motorists
with roads which they can safely use, or, at any rate, try and eliminate all hidden dangers. In other words, we have to try and design our roads with a high degree of automatic safety so that the movement of traffic can go on smoothly and safely, for the simple reason that it cannot do anything else. Our traffic problem to-day is one of the most difficult that we have to face and in solving it we must be careful to advance and not take any step that would hinder the proper development of our road transport industry. Road transport has become an essential and valuable element in the economy of the country, and a constantly increasing use of it is being made not only in the distribution of goods but in the conveyance of passengers on account of cheapness, convenience and speed, with the result that to-day we have more vehicles per mile of road than any other country. In France there are only 3.9 motors per mile of road, in Germany 6.3 and in the United States of America 8.8, while in England we have 13 motors per mile of road.
This density and activity of traffic, coupled with the facts that most of our roads have not been adequately planned, that they are frequently too narrow, designed with excessive camber, insufficiently banked at the corners to prevent skidding, and used by innumerable and diverse types of traffic unit, ranging from stray animals to sandwich men, flower sellers and three-ton lorries, all tend to give rise to the conditions which cause a disastrous number of accidents on our roads. The remedy does not lie in merely introducing precautionary measures such as speed limits or drivers tests, or even education in road sense and good will, because those things, though important, are only superficial and not fundamental causes of road accidents. The remedy lies in a wide scheme of road planning, signals and traffic control to meet not only the present conditions but the conditions of the future as well.
The only substantial alternatives to the modernising of our roads in this way would be to reduce the number of vehicles on our roads, particularly in our great cities, such as London, by limiting or eliminating altogether horse-drawn vehicles or trams, or by restricting the use of the roads to certain classes of vehicles, excluding the heavier classes,
and the goods that are now carried by those heavy vehicles might be transferred to the railways. To introduce either one or other of these alternatives would be a tremendous blow to all sections of road users in this country, and would also hinder the development of our road transport industry, and should therefore not be contemplated at the present time. The Government have a magnificent opportunity not only of bringing our roads up to date but of planning them for the future on a national scale, and I hope that when the Minister introduces his proposed legislation he will not only take into consideration the precautionary measures suggested but will also ask for powers to carry out a national campaign of road improvements on safety lines.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I congratulate the hon. Members who have respectively moved and seconded the Motion. When I heard the last speaker, towards the close of his speech, refer to the development of the roads of the country, I wondered whether some four or five years ago he might not have been an advocate of the policy which was then advocated by the party to which I belong. I am certain that had that policy been adopted at that time there would have been a good deal less debate in connection with accidents on the roads. The problem before the House to-day can be dealt with from three points of view. The first point of view is the legislative one, the introduction of legislation to amend the Road Traffic Act of 1930, in so far as it is defective. I do not, however, propose to deal with any aspect of legislation except to say that I trust that when legislation is introduced one part of that Act will receive attention, and that is the part dealing with compulsory insurance, because it has an indirect influence upon the serious nature of the accidents on our roads. If that Act were made as comprehensive as possible we should have fewer accidents.
I prefer to devote my time to the question of the administration of the existing laws. I am satisfied, and I am certain that other hon. Members will agree with me, that there should be more effective administration of the Act of 1930 by the Minister of Transport, by the local authorities with regard to the
administration of the roads and by the courts in the administration of the penal sections of the Act. Reference has been made to the last of those considerations. I should like to ask the Minister if everything is being done by those three authorities that can be done for the proper administration of the Road Traffic Act of 1930. Since that Act has come into existence there have been in many directions great and unpardonable neglect on the part of the authorities who have been asked to administer it. Do not let us blame the Legislature for not having made a statutory enactment which covers every point in connection with the user of the roads, until we are satisfied that the authorities called upon to administer the Act have performed their duty.
I should like to refer to a number of Sections of the Act and to ask the Minister how far they can be put into operation. When those Sections were introduced the object was to ensure safety on the roads. Take Section 23, which provides for inquiries into accidents. That not only enables the Ministry to discover the causes of accidents, but when publicity is given to the inquiries it enables the public to realise in what direction safety on the road lies. To what extent has Sub-section (3) of that Section been put into operation? It provides that:
If in any case the Minister considers that any inquiry to he made by him under this Section should be made by means of the holding of a public inquiry, he may direct a public inquiry to be held.
I may be mistaken, but I have not seen any reports of a public inqiry held under this Section. It may be that public inquiries have been held, but if so no publicity has been given to them. In the case of fatal accidents in coal mines and factories an enormous amount of publicity is given to the inquiry. That is all to the good, because it enables those concerned in the administration of our railways and industries to realise how the causes of fatal accidents can be removed. I hope, therefore, that some use will be made of this provision. In the case of an accident where two or three persons are killed it would be of distinct advantage if technical officials of the Ministry attended the inquest, in the same way as they do in the case of fatal accidents in mines and factories.
Then there is Section 46, which empowers the Minister to restrict the use of vehicles on specified roads. One of the greatest complaints you hear in many rural counties is that all types of vehicles travel through narrow roads which are absolutely unfit for such traffic. On one of the narrow roads in North Wales there was a fleet of motor coaches, which did not allow other vehicles to pass and endangered other users of the road. I do not know what use has been made of this Section, but I think that the attention of county councils might be drawn to the powers of the Minister with a view to scheduling roads under this Section. Reference has also been made to the question of traffic signs, dealt with in Section 48. The Act received Royal Assent on the 1st August, 1930. It is admitted that a fair proportion of the accidents on roads are at junctions, but there is as yet no uniformity of signs, notwithstanding the fact that a Departmental Committee reported on this matter. One would have thought that this would have been one of the first things dealt with by the Minister of Transport, but after four months in 1930, a full year in 1931 and a full year in 1932 and 1933 nothing has yet been done. If the Minister had tackled this question boldly at the outset I am certain that there would have been a saving of a considerable number of lives in various parts of the country. The reports as to the causes of accidents indicates this as one of the most serious causes of accidents.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but, of course, he is quite wrong in saying that no action has been taken, as I hope to show him in the course of my humble reply.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Nothing practical has been done in various parts of the country to put this Section into operation. Then there is the question of footpaths, in Section 58. During the passage of the Bill I moved an Amendment to make it a statutory obligation upon road authorities to provide footpaths. There is, however, no obligation. It is simply the expression of a pious opinion that it is
the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient
footpaths by the side of roads under their control.
I submit that it is within the power of the Minister of Transport to see that local authorities carry out that Section in the spirit in which it was enacted, and if he finds that they are not providing adequate footpaths he has a remedy: he can refuse to make any grant. I am quite justified in referring to the situation which exists in parts of the country. I know I shall be up against my own county council, Flintshire, and two neighbouring county councils. On the road between the important towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn there is no adequate footpath. Juries have adopted riders calling attention to this matter. Where the fault lies I do not known; but nothing has been done. The remedy is plain. Go to Denbighshire. The road upon which there is the greatest amount of traffic in North Wales is from Aberdovey to Colwyn Bay. There is no suitable footpath along that road. I mention these matters because I complain that the Minister has not exercised powers which he might have exercised. I was walking along the River Colwyn from Bethesda to Colwyn Bay, one of the most beautiful roads in the country. There is a magnificent macadamised road for vehicular traffic, but while the officials of the Carnarvonshire County Council have been looking after the macadamised part of the road they have been throwing all their rubbish on to the footpath, and periodically I had to step from the footpath on to the road. Such a position is perfectly intolerable. The pedestrian is entitled to the same consideration as motorists and drivers of vehicles, and the making of a footpath should not be left for years after the road has been made suitable for vehicular traffic. The operations of making the footpath and the road should go on concurrently. I suggest that in this connection the Ministry might use their influence with the local authorities. I know what is said frequently. I have heard it said in this House that pedestrians will not use the footpaths. But you cannot expect them to do unless you provide them with suitable footpaths.
Let me deal briefly with the administration of the penal Sections of the Road Traffic Act. I fear that in many parts of the country magistrates have scarcely realised their obligation in this matter. It is not merely a question of inflicting
a heavy penalty by way of a fine. In a very large majority of cases the question of sending an accused person to prison does not arise, nor would I suggest it, but the powers that magistrates possess of withdrawing the driving licence of an offender, is a very valuable power, and if it were exercised more freely by magistrates in serious cases it would certainly have a deterrent effect.
A third aspect of the question of accidents on the roads is one to which reference has been made. That is the educational aspect. I suggest that as the Safety First Association is to be entrusted with the function of educating public opinion by propaganda in the Press and otherwise, it might be of advantage if in certain parts of the country conferences were held. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) when Minister for Mines was remarkably successful with his conferences, in various parts of the country, on the question of safety in the mines. There were enormous attendances at those conferences, and I believe they had an immense influence. Something of the same kind might be arranged in connection with "safety first" on the roads. There would be no difficulty in getting town or county representatives of local authorities, representatives of the magistrates, motorists, pedestrians and others to come to these conferences, to hear addresses, and to have a free and open discussion of how the problem can best be dealt with. That would be the best means of securing publicity in many parts of the country. I trust that the Minister will consider that suggestion. We are all anxious to do everything possible to reduce the toll of life and limb on the road, and I am certain that no expense incurred by the Minister for that purpose would be grudged by the citizens of the country.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN: While I am in complete agreement with the Seconder of the Motion, who in a very able speech made the observation that we do not want any more laws, rules and regulations, but that we want the existing laws, rules and regulations carried into effect, I was not sure that I followed him when he advocated a gargantuan scheme for replanning the roads. He did not elaborate
his scheme, and it is difficult for the House to canvass its possibilities, but I have one or two suggestions to make to the Minister. Before I do so I wish to say that it is somewhat of a surprise to me that one aspect of this controversy has not emerged from this discussion, namely, the distribution of the blame as between pedestrian and motorist for this appalling holocaust which is revealed by the report of the Minister.
There seems to be a certain confusion of thought noticeable in this connection. It arises from a fallacy in treating the pedestrian and the motorist as if they were two distinct species, two perfectly different animals whose interests were diametrically in conflict. Of course, they are identical. Very few pedestrians there are who in the course of the day do not use their own motor vehicle, someone else's motor vehicle or the motor vehicle of one of the public companies. I myself, like most of my fellow creatures, am both a pedestrian and a motorist. I derive pleasure and health from walking, that is to say when I am not risking my life crossing one of our main thoroughfares; and I derive convenience from motoring. We all can surely approach this matter, therefore, from a perfectly impartial angle. It may be said, of course, that although most pedestrians are motorists, and vice versa, the attitude of mind of the same man is different when he is a motorist from what it is when he is a pedestrian. He is Dr. Jekyll in one capacity and Mr. Hyde in the other. I hesitate to give any opinion as to which he is when.
That may be perfectly true, but I would like to examine the accusation of the motorist, because it is important to do so when he attaches the blame to the pedestrian. There is nothing more difficult to prove, but I suggest that there is this difference which we can take into consideration regarding the blame which attaches in each case. We are told that the pedestrian does not want to be run over, and that therefore either by instinct or inclination he exercises all his ingenuity and physical powers to avoid being run over. I regret to think that the motorist does not take every precaution he might in order to avoid inflicting grievous bodily harm on the pedestrian. Too often his attitude is, "I have hooted, and the fellow did not get
out of the way, and it serves him right if he is run over." Surely the attitude of the pedestrian is not, "Well, I gave every indication to the motorist that I wanted to cross the road, and it serves him jolly well right for getting into trouble for running over me. I am glad I deliberately gave him an opportunity of maiming me for life." There is the other consideration, that the motorist is very often going at such a pace that he cannot avoid a collision. But he knows the pace at which he is going. I am not advocating Lord Cecil's expedient of placing a disc upon every motor car. But the motorist does know his pace and the pedestrian cannot see the speedometer, and cannot make the calculations necessary for his own safety.
There is a third point in deciding where the blame attaches. If hon. Members examine the official statistics on this question I think I am right in saying that they will find that the majority of those who are run over are either young children or old persons. Those who have reached years of discretion and have not yet reached their dotage—I class myself in that category—and possess the wisdom and experience of middle age, plus a certain amount of physical agility, apparently come off best. You cannot lay down a rule that only those who are middle-aged shall cross the road. The aged and the children have to cross the road on their lawful occasions. They have the common privileges of the King's highway. Even those who are defective in mind or limb share those common privileges. These, I am afraid, are all arguments which lead me to the conclusion that excessive speed is one of the main factors in this long tale of disaster. I hope the Minister will not think that I am advocating a universal speed limit. I am doing nothing of the kind, but I suggest to him that there might be better control of the speed limit at certain danger spots.
To judge from the reports, some of the worst danger points are to be found in those parts of the suburbs where the motorist who has set out on his journey from the crowded centre of the town, and has been retarded in the congested streets for an hour or so, suddenly experiences the exhilaration of being able to "open out." I represent the division of Finchley, which suffers most acutely
from offering that agreeable relief to the motorist who is exasperated by delays and hindrances encountered in an earlier stage of his journey. We have had to enlarge the hospital. There is a junction of two great roads in the middle of my constituency which is known as Tally Ho Corner—a name suggesting associations which, under present conditions, are, to put it mildly, no longer appropriate. Only to the extent of its present circumstances being "the image of war" can it be connected in any way with the sport so beloved of Mr. Jorrocks. I, personally, associate it with a general massacre of the population by motorists who have been exasperated by the long restraint of congested streets. In this connection I share the prejudices of the great majority of my constituents—an enviable position for a Member of Parliament—and that is one of my excuses for intervening in the Debate.
I make this special appeal to the Minister. Although it may be irksome to the motorist, although it may mean taking longer to get out of the dreary waste of bricks and mortar into the country, it is essential that at these suburban danger spots all regulations should be tightened up. As I say, I am not advocating a universal speed limit, but that the present regulations as to speed limit at danger spots shall be properly carried into effect. I have seen the suggestion that one remedy for this terrible record of death and disaster is that the whole proceeds of the Road Fund should be devoted to making the egresses from our great towns wider and better, increasing the number of arterial roads and widening and straightening roads. To my mind that is not a reasonable suggestion. If there is one circumstance which has contributed more than another to these accidents, it is the facility afforded by the improvement and increase of roads for travelling at break-neck speeds. We can argue on two aspects of this question, one the convenience of the motorist, and the other safety, but we are in danger of confusing those two things.
That is why I wish that the seconder of the Motion—whom I am glad to see in his place now—had elaborated his scheme of reconditioning the roads. I was not sure whether he meant a large increase of roads and the widening and straightening of roads. If so, I join issue with
him. We all know that before the roads were widened and straightened to the present extent they had what were known as dangerous corners. I always regarded those as the safest points on a road, because all motorists took precautions on reaching them. I notice that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion shakes his head. I ask him to take warning by what has happened on the Great West road since it has been widened and straightened, and the dangerous corners have been eliminated. What goes on there now strikes terror into the hearts of the bravest. One may see six or seven motor cars there on a greasy day, riding each other off, like ponies in a polo match, and risking the lives both of the drivers and of those who venture to cross the road. As it is, I think there is a superfluity of these enormous roads, cutting their way into the beauty spots of what was once a peaceful and smiling land. If you are going to increase these enormous arterial roads, do not do so in the name of safety, but use some rather more convincing argument for spending the money of the ratepayers and taxpayers.
As the Minister wants suggestions from us, I wish to put one other proposal before him. It is that there should be some limit to the width of every type of vehicle using the roads. All who have driven cars know how aggravating it is to find oneself behind a vehicle which is so wide that it is impossible to see what is beyond it—whether there is a bend in the road where one should not pass, or whether there is a car coming head on towards one. In such circumstances there is a very great temptation, human nature being what it is, to endeavour to pass at a moment which is not appropriate. I believe that a great number of accidents occur in that way. I appeal to the Minister not to pay too much attention to the clamour of the pedestrians or of the motorists but to exercise his well-known abilities and his ingenuity, in order to discover methods of obviating what all in the House and outside the House regard as a grave danger and a great scandal.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I am sure we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) for having
selected this subject for debate. This is a question which is exercising the minds, not only of Members of this House but of local authorities in every part of Great Britain. One was pleased with the admirable manner in which the hon. Member moved the Motion and put forward the suggestions which he had to make. At the same time we have to go a little further than he indicated if we are to deal with this matter. These road accidents constitute such a growing menace that something drastic will have to be done, either through the Ministry or through the local authorities. I understood the Mover of the Motion to express the view that bad lighting was the greatest cause of accidents, and that the peak period for accidents was from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP: I said that lighting was one of the main contributory factors and that the period between 10 and 11 o'clock at night was the fourth most dangerous period of the twenty-four hours, as regards the number of accidents which occurred in that period.

Mr. PARKINSON: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member. I understood him to say that he considered bad lighting to be one of the great causes of accidents, but I think there are other things as desirable in this connection as improved lighting. Secondly, he mentioned road surfaces, and he eulogised the tarred surface. I do not agree with him there, because I have in my mind's eye a road that is now under repair on a gradient, and they are leaving a tarred surface, which is distinctly dangerous, in my opinion. I do not think they ought to allow that kind of thing to be done, and I think it could be obviated, either by the local people, or by the very able engineers who are under the control of the Minister. I quite agree with the hon. Member about co-ordination between road authorities, education authorities, and so on. He also mentioned pedal cyclists and asked that special tracks should be made at the side of the road for them. I am sure it would be much to the relief both of motorists and of cyclists if they had some kind of security of this sort, as quite a large number of accidents are caused through cyclists being run down. There may be many causes for that. It may be that their
reflector is not quite as good as it ought to be, and it may be that it is getting time to reintroduce the red light or something which will at least denote that they are on the road more successfully than does the reflector at the present moment. This is one of the things upon which I have rather strong opinions. I have gone along a road at night, and we have passed cyclists, and there has been really no light at all; and it makes it not only a positive danger to the man who is riding the cycle, but to the people in the car or omnibus who are trying to miss something which they have not seen till they are right on top of it.
I think it was the Seconder of the Motion who raised the question of by-pass roads. By-pass roads are very necessary in many cases, in congested areas particularly, but I am afraid that by-pass roads, being made so fine and good, are becoming a kind of practice racing track for people who are desirous of exceeding the speed limit or of getting a higher speed out of their car than can some of their friends. As a consequence, we are having on these by-pass roads quite a large number of the accidents with which we are faced to-day, and if it is going to become a common custom for people on these good roads to open out, as one hon. Member put it, to such an extent that it will be a positive danger to themselves and other motorists on the road, something will have to be done in that connection.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) said about the roads in Denbigh and Flint. I do not know whether they were born before or after their time, but according to his statement the roads in his area are about the worst roads that can be found in the country. The very gloomy picture that he painted leads one to believe that the roads there are only fit for the old kind of perambulator that used to be on the roads about 40 years ago, and I do not think his statement reflects any credit on his county council or on the local authorities from any point of view. It is up to hon. Members and to everybody else who is a public servant to do all that they can to bring to the notice of the responsible authorities the danger of this kind of thing and to urge that they ought at least to take upon themselves the
responsibility for trying to put matters in a safe condition at the earliest possible moment.
I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions about road supervision. I understand, of course, that his Department is very heavily charged with this kind of work, which takes a large amount of the time of the Minister and of his very able staff. This is an extraordinarily large problem, which almost baffles real supervision, because new conditions are springing up from day to day. I would like to ask whether the roads are designed and equipped to meet the requirements of modern times. In many respects probably they are, and in many respects probably they are not, because we find conditions upon the roads of the country which ought not to be there. It may be that it is the responsibility of the local authorities, or it may be that they could not get sanction from the Minister for the spending of money for improving the roads. Whichever it is, I think a wider outlook will have to be exercised in every one of these directions, in order to give greater safety to the whole of our people and in order that the roads shall not be more dangerous, shall I say, than working in some industries.
Some of the roads which I know are irregular, some of them are narrow, some have bad gradients, and some have very bad bends. Is it possible to rebuild the roads? It could not be done all at once, but a proper co-ordination of work could be drawn up—not on the spur of the moment, but a properly worked out programme—by local authorities and submitted to the Minister, whereby irregular roads could be straightened and rebuilt, because, after all, there are old roads to-day which are not suitable from many point of view, for modern traffic, and on the narrow bottle-neck roads something ought to be done immediately. I have in mind one or two what I call bottle-necks, or narrow passages with a wide road at each end, which are positively dangerous. There are one or two where there is only just room for two omnibuses to pass, just after a good, wide road probably 36 feet wide. I do not think any local authority ought to allow that sort of thing to exist, because it only wants one smash, it only wants two omnibuses to run one into the other, and then the money will be spent, and the
road will be put right after probably a dozen lives have been lost. In a matter like this I think the Road Fund ought to be at the disposal of the Minister, by agreement with local authorities, and money ought not to stand in the way of clearing out property upon which is placed a very fictitious value.
Gradients, in my opinion, ought to be eased up and covered with the best nonskid material. I am sure that many of the gradients in the country are not covered with really non-skid material, and, of course, I may be told that there is no really perfect non-skid material on the market. I do not know about that but I know there is some material that is better than others, and the best that is known ought to be used. Then again I do not think sufficient super-elevation is given in some cases. I think a greater super-elevation ought to be given on bends, which will prevent the possibility of a skid. I have in mind a bend in a road which is not a road of any age, so to speak. It has been repaired quite recently, but there is no super-elevation there at all, and I have expected, and do expect every time I pass that road, to hear of some accident happening there. Why the engineer, either of the local authority or of the county council, does not insist upon the right height of super-elevation in order to avoid the possibility of accidents I cannot understand, but I suppose that it is simply in order to save the extra cost which would be entailed. If so, it is being penny wise and pound foolish, and it is at the expense of human life, which alone will put it right.
By-pass roads are necessary in congested areas and towns, and in Lancashire we are really congested. I am sure the Minister knows that there is a large number of towns in Lancashire which really need a good by-pass road. It may be that the local authorities have opposed it, but we have to get beyond even the local authority or the private individual in cases like that, and try to find the best thing to do in the interests of the greatest number, and I believe that a survey of Lancashire would show a large number of towns where it is necessary to have by-pass roads in order to relieve the centre of the town from the overcrowding which at present exists. I believe also that heavy traffic should not be allowed
to go through congested areas if other roads are available. Many towns during the week-end are crowded with people and vehicles, and greater co-ordination is necessary between the Ministry and the local authorities in order that the congestion might be done away with. Congested or defective roads are a danger to the community. We cannot apportion the blame between the pedestrian or the motorist. I am not going to advocate the speed limit or anything of that kind for an individual's commonsense ought to tell him when he is going fast enough, and he ought to exercise his conscience when he is driving and see that it is clear. I am sure that the defects I have mentioned can be remedied, but how and by whom are they to be remedied? They cannot be remedied at the whole expense of the local authorities, and I am afraid that the Minister will have to be asked to contribute more freely to the local authorities in order to make the necessary improvements.
Local authorities must be encouraged, and the only way to encourage them is by giving them higher grants than have hitherto been given with a view to meeting the needs of the community. From 1926 to 1933 there has been only one year in which less money has been spent through road improvement grants than in 1933. In that year, which was 1928–9, the number of vehicles on the roads was much fewer than to-day. Since then the motor taxation has nearly doubled and motors have increased by 250,000. These figures do not go very well together. The money is coming into the fund, and it ought to be used to meet what is required by the people who pay the taxation. In seven years motor taxation has increased by 190 per cent. and the number of vehicles by 32 per cent. Economy in a matter of this kind means expenditure in human life. I should like to call the attention of the Minister to his reply to the question put this afternoon by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). Everybody will agree that the figures he gave are appalling.
I should also like to bring before the Minister the question of the number of weak bridges all over the country, and to a statement in the Press a few weeks ago giving a list of the number of bridges which have been scheduled by
the railway and canal companies since the passing of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. Lancashire is credited with the highest number, namely, 254. Such a number in one county is bound to have a great effect upon the congestion of the roads, because, for every bridge scheduled, traffic has to find a fresh road or take the main road. I would suggest to the Minister that he should have the scheduled bridges examined. I do not think we ought to take the word of the canal and railway companies.

Mr. STANLEY: Under the Road and Rail Traffic Act any road user who is aggrieved by a restriction or a prohibition placed on the use of a bridge has a right to appeal to me.

Mr. PARKINSON: But many people will not appeal on account of the difficulty and expense of appealing. If the bridges are found to be defective after examination by the Ministry every step ought to be taken to make the owners strengthen them. That is only common justice and common sense, because the existence of these weak bridges must play havoc on the roads upon which the diverted traffic has to go. This question demands immediate attention, and I hope it will be taken up at once. Motor traffic is increasing and provision must be made for it. New roads are needed, particularly when others are closed. There is the question of crossings for pedestrians. The absence of these is one of the causes of a large number of accidents which ought not to occur. There should be a crossing place against every control signal and it ought to be clear and well defined. There ought to be some kind of signal attached to the control signal whereby people will know that it is safe for them to cross. I do not see any great difficulty or expense about that. It is simply a matter of organising and a matter for the local authorities to take up in conjunction with the Ministry.
Another question which I know has engaged the attention of the Minister is that of barriers to prevent school children rushing out of school on to the road. Barriers ought to be erected at every school, particularly on a Class 1 road or on any road where there is a considerable amount of traffic. Every road should be provided with a footpath, which should
be not less than 4 feet 6 inches in width. It is all very well to say that country roads do not need a footpath, but there is not a road in the country which is classified that does not need a path. Every classified road ought to have one so that people can walk in comfort feeling that they are not in danger from passing traffic. Every road over 30 feet wide should be provided with refuges at stated distances and busy points. I do not think that would be either expensive or difficult. It would probably be more difficult to get people accustomed to use them, but until we make a start by providing them we shall not know.
One or two things in connection with the usage of roads has struck me and should be put right. I do not know how the law stands with regard to vehicles coming out of side streets and whether they have a right to go straight into the road into which they are turning. I have noticed in my travels that a large number of vehicles come out of a side road and, if the main road is not clear, they block up nearly the whole of the footpath so that pedestrians have to get off the path and go round the vehicle and probably meet with an accident. That is only a small matter, but it is a potential source of danger and something ought to be done. Traffic from side streets ought not to be allowed to go nearer the main road than the building line, keeping a clear space at least equal to the width of the footpath. Vehicles should not pass a tram or other vehicle when passengers are boarding or alighting. The hon. Member who moved the Motion mentioned the number of deaths caused by motors not stopping. It may be within the competence of local authorities to deal with this in their by-laws. If it is, the Minister ought to urge local authorities to do it, and prevent what is a prolific source of accidents.
Another thing I have noticed which does not, I think, reflect any credit upon the motorist is the habit of some motorists to hug the centre of the road and decline to give way to a following vehicle, with the consequence that people who take the risk of trying to pass sometimes meet with an accident. I do not think that such men are fit to have either a licence or anything else. If a man cannot get along the road himself he ought to make way for others who desire
to pass, in order that they may do so in safety. Further, all traffic control signals and road signs should be made as uniform as possible, and all road signs should be of uniform height and clearness and easily within the line of vision of drivers. That is a very important matter. It was mentioned by the Mover of the Motion, and I agree with him. If these signs were of uniform height and pattern, every motorist would know where to look and what he would except to find. Also, I think that every local authority ought to be urged to have the provisions of the Road Code taught in the day schools. A large number of children are injured and maimed every year through the sheer neglect of not having been taught what they ought to do. Stronger reflectors at the rear of pedal bicycles ought to be enforced, and if we cannot have stronger reflectors we ought to have the rear red light. Those are a few things which I have put down for the consideration of the Minister, and I hope he may find that there is something in one of them which may be of use.
Finally, I wish to refer to the number of people killed in Lancashire. That is a very thickly populated county, though the population is being diminished through two persons being killed every day and about 60 people injured. In Great Britain as a whole there are 20 deaths per day and over 700 people injured, bringing anguish and suffering to every home concerned. Every day there is a knock at some 750 doors to announce that there has been an accident in the road and that someone who lives there has been injured either fatally or nonfatally. I urge the Minister to give attention to the things I have mentioned, because I believe in that way we could reduce what are prolific sources of accidents on the road. I understand that insurance statistics show that something like 1,000,000 men and women in this country are permanently disabled through motoring accidents. We cannot afford to waste our population in that way. They may be insured, but what are insurance payments compared with life or health?
If we do not do something more drastic and allow accidents to go on increasing year by year, as more motor vehicles come on the roads, we shall be laying
up for ourselves a harvest which will not reflect credit either upon the House of Commons, the Ministry of Transport or the local authorities. Local authorities ought to be charged with full responsibility. When they desire to undertake an improvement which would reduce the toll of accidents, full consideration ought to be given to the case by the Minister, and if it becomes a question of finding money then the Minister ought to consider whether he cannot make them a grant, so that better provision may be made for the prevention of accidents and greater happiness and security given to the people using the roads.

9.20 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: In following the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), and being myself a Member for another part of Lancashire, I should like to make a similar appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister. I wish to speak in a constructive sense. I do not agree that this is a question between pedestrians and motorists, I think it is a question for the whole country. We ought not to attack this problem from the point of view alone either of the motorist or the pedestrian. I have studied the statistics which have been published, and I have come to the conclusion that the great majority of accidents take place in congested areas at peak periods of traffic—between 7 and 9 a.m., between noon and 1 p.m., and between 5 and 6 p.m. That indicates that accidents are caused by the congestion in the streets—that is, in the majority of cases. I am not talking of the accidents on the open road, but the majority of accidents which take place. Looking further into the statistics, I find that the majority of accidents occur to pedestrians. In 1930 there were 7,305 fatal accidents, in 1931 the figure went down to 6,691, and declined further in 1932 to 6,607, but in 1933, as we were told just now, it was 7,135. We must remember that there are more vehicles on the road now than there were in 1930; the average increase is somewhere about 80,000 vehicles a year.
The statistics show that from January to June last year there were 3,025 accidents. The number of pedestrians killed was 1,581—which is more than half the total of 3,025. Then we find that 1,034 cyclists were killed—514 motor cyclists
and 520 pedal cyclists. Only 410 of the 3,025 fatal accidents during that period from January to June occurred to people who were not either cyclists—motor cyclists or pedal cyclists—or pedestrians. I think, therefore, the problem to attack is how to prevent accidents to pedestrians and to cyclists. It is obviously a very big problem, and we do not want to look at it from a fanatical point of view, as, possibly, do the Pedestrians League. A circular was sent to me a short time ago in which the Pedestrians League suggested that we should abolish all motor, bicycles, that motor vehicles should go at only 12 miles an hour in all towns and that there should be a universal speed limit of 20 miles an hour in the country. If the Pedestrians' League had its way we should be a laughing-stock all over the world. People would look at Great Britain and say, "See how slowly she is going!" Moreover, another very important thing would happen. We should lose a great deal of our export trade in motor cars and motor vehicles.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Quite so; that is what you are thinking of.

Sir W. BRASS: The hon. Member may be anxious to see it happen; I am not so anxious, but possibly he does not agree with me. We do not want to look at the question from the point of view of the Pedestrians' League, nor from that of Lord Cecil, who suggests that every motor car should have at the back a speedometer about as big as a clock and that, if a motorist exceeded the speed limit, he should immediately be pulled up and—I suppose—shot at dawn. I do not think that is a very practical suggestion. The same Noble Lord wrote a letter to the "Times" in 1928 making another suggestion: that all motor cars should have governors on them cutting down the speed to a certain level. The difficulty in carrying out that suggestion will, of course, easily be realised. When one motorist is about to pass another vehicle the governor might quite easily cut in and he would then find himself running alongside the vehicle with another coming in the opposite direction. The result would be that appalling accidents would happen all over the roads. Another suggestion of the Noble Lord's, which I think was the most brilliant of all his suggestions, I propose to read, because it is a little difficult to paraphrase:
There are other provisions which might be made, such as the insistence in all cars on four-wheel brakes capable of instantly stopping each wheel.
One can well imagine what would happen if, directly the driver put his foot on the pedal, all the wheels were instantly stopped: the vehicle would probably either skid or turn over. I would suggest to my Noble Friend that he should consult some of the manufacturers before he makes suggestions of that kind.
That is not the way to solve our problem, nor shall we solve it by putting speed limits on the road. Some people have advocated that course, and I would point out one or two of its disadvantages. The first and foremost is the difficulty of enforcing a speed limit. We remember very well what happened when we had a speed limit of 20 miles an hour: it was almost impossible to enforce. The same thing would apply if a universal speed limit in all built-up areas were instituted. The best answer which can be made to that suggestion is the answer which is found when one examines the applications to the Minister for speed limits. The Minister has been asked to put into operation 11 speed limits, and has only agreed to four of them; he has turned down five, and I believe that there are still two under consideration. We ought to trust the Minister in these cases and not to allow all the local authorities to put speed limits on wherever they like. The Minister knows a great deal about such things and has permanent officials who are well versed in them all. We can therefore trust him to put speed limits on where they are necessary. I agree that they are necessary in certain cases, but only in certain cases.
When the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was passing through the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment embodying the suggestion that before anyone was allowed to have a licence to drive a motor-car on the road he should pass an oral examination on the rules of the road, so that he should not be totally ignorant of what was expected of him when he was driving his car. I will make that suggestion again to my hon. and gallant Friend, and in making it I do not ask for a test of driving skill, because I do not think that it would be of any use. Anybody can steer, stop, back, and generally control a motor-car after very
little practice, but everybody who is going to drive about the roads should have some knowledge of the rules of the road before he is allowed to have a licence. I am also going to suggest one or two of the questions that might be asked; I suggested a few in the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. One is: "What would you do if you wanted to turn to the right?" The answer should be: "I should look in my mirror and see if anyone was coming; I should then hold out my hand, and then I should turn to the right." If I did not get an answer like that I should say, "Learn to look in your mirror first before you turn to the right; otherwise, you are not fit to drive a car." Another question I should ask is, "What would the signal be for turning to the left? "Here I have a bone to pick with the Minister, because I have in my hand the Highway Code and also the code of the National Safety First Association, which is subsidised to a certain extent, I believe, through the Minister.

Mr. STANLEY indicated dissent.

Sir W. BRASS: I would point out that in the Highway Code the signal to turn to the left is a movement of the hand up and down.

Mr. MABANE: Is that correct? Surely in doing that you are not saying that you are going to turn to the left, but that you are going to back.

Sir W. BRASS: That is exactly what I was going to point out. In the Highway Code the signal is a movement of the hand up and down, but in the National Safety First Association's Code the movement is a sweeping one from rear to front, repeated, which I think is the correct movement. So the two codes differ, and it is very difficult for the public to know which is the right signal. The Highway Code should be revised, and it should be made quite clear what these signals ought to be. If not, we should make it compulsory for all motorists—certainly for those who drive closed vehicles—to have signalling arms fixed at the sides. That is compulsory in Berlin and also, I believe, in other places. I would ask the Minister whether, if he does not agree with an oral examination on the rules of the road, he would consider
having a declaration made and signed by the potential driver, before he is given a licence for the first time, to the effect that he has in fact learned the code of the road? If he did that, he would find that quite a number of people would learn the code of the road before they got a licence, instead of throwing it into the waste-paper basket, as is often done at the present time, and it would have a very material effect.
How are we to save these motorists from themselves? I have suggested the mechanical signal, which would help, and other hon. Members have suggested better surfaced roads and banked corners
—which is an excellent suggestion—better signposts, and so on. We have not decided what we can do with the cyclists. Here I suggest that reflectors should be passed as standard before they are allowed to be placed on the bicycles. The law lays it down that a bicycle shall have an efficient reflector on the back. It is very difficult to know what is an efficient reflector. Most of them, as has been said by an hon. Member who sits at my side, are not efficient reflectors. I make the suggestion to the Minister that he should only allow to be fitted to bicycles reflectors that have been passed as efficient at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington, and that only such reflectors—anybody might make them who can make efficient reflectors—and that type of reflector should be fitted to the bicycle. Then we should know that every bicycle on the road had a reflector which was considered to be efficient by the National Physical Laboratory.
It is the same principle as that which was adopted in France. In France, special lamps have to be fitted to motor cars. There you turn off your headlights and put on a dimming light when you meet another car at night, and only certain kinds of lamps which have been passed officially by, I think it is, the Ministry of Transport or a similar department in Paris, are allowed. I ask the Minister if he will insist upon that. We want what we do to be positive, and as positive as possible. If we get efficient reflectors on our bicycles we shall have gone some step forward in protecting the bicyclist from himself.
Then I urge, as I have urged on many occasions—the Minister has heard this
suggestion, because I have asked so many questions about it in the last three or four years—that pedestrians' paths should be placed on the roads and marked out with studs. It is three-and-a-half years since I made that suggestion in the House. I saw the idea in Paris, and it worked admirably. It has worked so well in Paris that practically every street has such studs across it. It makes the provision positive. If a pedestrian crosses the road in the sanctuary which is marked out for him and he is touched by any motor car, automatically the fault is that of the driver of the car. If, on the other hand, he happens to cross the road within a few yards of one of these pedestrians' sanctuaries and is touched by a motor vehicle, no doubt the magistrate, or whoever it is before whom he goes, would ask him why it was that, as there was a sanctuary waiting for him, he did not use the sanctuary, but crossed the road in another place. That fact would be taken into consideration in assessing the blame between the pedestrian and the driver.
I urge that suggestion most sincerely, because it is one of the most important things that ought to be done for saving life at congested areas. I would not do it at a place where we have traffic lights at the present moment, because I am afraid that if pedestrians' paths were put in front of the traffic lights in London, the first thing that would happen would be that a person would say, "This is my sanctuary, and I am going to walk across," and would cross when the lights were the wrong way. I suggest that pedestrians' paths or, as I call them, sanctuaries, should be made compulsory in London and in all our big towns. Gradually the big cities of Lancashire and elsewhere should have a network of studded paths across the roads, so that pedestrians should have some right of being able to cross the roads. The pedestrian has no right at all in London, because he has no opportunity of being able to cross the road. I urge most sincerely that this is the matter that should be considered in relation to London and all congested areas, where most of the accidents happen, and that the Minister should see to it that studded paths are placed in all the different congested areas.
I would like to make one or two suggestions about the pedestrians themselves. When they walk on the roads, pedestrians should always walk facing the traffic. That is very important. Most people walk on the left, but they ought to walk on the right of the road and face the on-coming traffic. If people could be taught to do that in places where there are no footpaths, a great number of accidents would be avoided. I do not suggest that this is a substitute for footpaths. We ought to have footpaths wherever we can. The statistics of the number of people who have been killed on country roads show that more people were killed walking on roads where there were footpaths than on roads where there were no footpaths, because they had not used the footpaths at all. That point is brought out in this Report, page 7 of which says:
Eighty-four pedestrians were killed while walking along roads. Of these 52 were killed on roads where a footpath was available, and 32 where no footpaths were available.

Mr. KIRKW0OD: The reason why they walk on the road is because the footpath is not as good for walking on as is the road.

Sir W. BRASS: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was going to press upon the Minister that footpaths should be made of the same sort of material as the road, so that people could walk on them. He has stated exactly what does happen. I have spent enough time discussing this question, and other hon. Members wish to speak. I have made suggestions to the Minister in all sincerity because I feel that this is a very important Debate, and that we should try and make suggestions of a constructive character in order to assist in reducing the appalling toll of the roads which is going on all over the country. I therefore urge upon the Minister to consider some of the humble suggestions which I have made.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: The increase in the number of people killed upon the roads has been so large recently that an immense amount of thought and speech has been given to the question how to reduce that terrible death rate. There are two things which are absolutely essential if it is to be reduced. We may
beat about the bush, and snake suggestions about this and about that. Some suggestions are made that would slightly reduce the death rate; others are merely childish; but there are two things which are absolutely essential to a reduction of the death rate—the fixing of a speed limit and tests for motorists. Lord Cecil has suggested that motor vehicles should bear an indicator which would show when a particular vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) poured ridicule upon the Noble Lord's suggestion, but Lord Cecil has, I think, made it quite clear that such a suggestion is scientifically perfectly feasible, and that there is no reason whatever why it should not work. It is that there should be a disc showing when the speed limit was exceeded, and I wish to support his suggestion.
With regard to tests, applicants for licences should be tested, (1) as to physical fitness; (2) as to their mechanical competence; and (3) as to their knowledge of road signs. In those countries where tests have been imposed they have been immensely advantageous and useful in keeping down the death rate from accidents. I am told that the tests used in Canada would put 50 per cent. of our British motorists out of court. However that may be, I do urge that tests, coupled with the limitation of speed, are alone likely to create any substantial reduction in the death rate from accidents. The Ministry of Transport may refuse to face that fact; they may juggle and wriggle to avoid dealing with these two questions; my hon. Friend may bury his head in the sand like an ostrich and try not to see facts which exist; but sooner or later the Ministry will have to face these two questions, that of fixing a speed limit and that of tests for drivers.
The fixing of speed limits is opposed by many different interests. The Automobile Association, the automobile press, and, above all, the manufacturers of automobiles, are extremely anxious that no limit should be put upon speed. The manufacturers, of course, are thinking of business; they are not thinking of lives at all, but of orders. May I read an extract from a speech by Sir Herbert Austin to the Motor Agents' Association, a report of which appeared in the "Daily Mirror" of the 17th October, 1933:
I have had a long chat with the Minister of Transport, and I am very much afraid that, if we do not discover some ways and means of reducing accidents, we shall have the old speed limit returning. That would be an enormous setback to trade. Everybody connected with the industry ought to do everything he can to get his clients to appreciate the danger there is of returning to the old speed limit.
"The danger." The danger to whom? Whose danger is Sir Herbert Austin thinking about? He is not thinking about the danger to the lives of the users of the roads; he is thinking of the danger to trade and dividends. My view is that trade and dividends are as nothing compared with the lives of the 20 people a day who are killed at the present time. The motor newspapers have suddenly become very friendly. I have here a letter from the "Autocar," which says:
I sometimes feel that it is not sufficiently appreciated in the Press, and even in the House of Commons, how thoroughly are all decent motorists in accord with the Minister of Transport in his efforts to provide greater safety on the roads. For over 35 years the 'Autocar' has been the spokesman for such motorists, and this week this journal is making a special effort to back up the Minister in his campaign.
The "Autocar" has been one of the worst of the papers in its attitude towards those who have been trying to save human life. It actually, in attacking the Pedestrians' Association, accused them of being subsidised by the railway companies, and it had to withdraw abjectly that wicked insinuation. But now the "Autocar," like other newspapers has changed its tune, and is all out for conciliation and union between those who are interested in this matter. These various newspapers and associations are making all kinds of recommendations—the kind of recommendations made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) in moving the Motion, and by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded. Those suggestions may slightly reduce the death rate, but there is no suggestion to limit the speed, and there is no suggestion that tests for drivers should be accepted. The Royal Automobile Club specifically condemns tests for drivers. There must be any amount of limitations on pedestrians; they should do this, they should do that, they should do all sorts of things which they never have done and never will do; but
the two vital matters, speed and tests for drivers, are not being faced, and have not been faced. It is suggested that people should take care, but it is no use preaching to people to abandon habits which human nature has instilled in them. It is no use expecting little children of three and four to have the minds of men of 25 and 26. We have to remember that human nature is human nature, and to eliminate the factor of danger which affects human nature. The Pedestrians' Association put the point very well in a pamphlet which they recently issued:
In the workshop the Home Office does not issue appeals to workers to keep their fingers out of running machines; it issues regulations making compulsory the guarding of machines. It does not say, 'Be careful how you store your petrol, because petrol is inflammable'; it lays down conditions under which petrol shall be stored. On the railways drivers were not warned against running into one another, but block signalling was made compulsory, and now automatic signalling and other devices are supplementing and supplanting human control.
The Minister has given £5,000 to the Safety First Association to preach to the pedestrian as to what will save him and how the roads should be used. I am sorry that the Ministry of Transport has for some time past shown a steady bias against the reduction of speed. It recently issued a brochure which created the impression on the country that, of 2,998 accidents, only 265 were due to the speed being too high. That, as the Pedestrians' Association stated, is a serious mis-statement. I wish the Ministry of Transport would not make statements like that; they destroy the prestige of the Ministry, which is not too high.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: ; How do you know that?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I have only to let my ears do their natural function. The Ministry of Transport has not too high a prestige in the country. It has issued figures which, when examined, prove to be quite misleading, although they have been copied all over the country. Really the Minister ought not to destroy our confidence in the Ministry and make it difficult to trust it when it issues documents and figures.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Which figures is the hon. Member alluding to?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: To the number of accidents, 3,000 all but two, and your brochure gives the impression that of that number only 265 were due to excessive speed. Another matter on which I wish strongly to condemn the Ministry is in dealing with applications by local authorities for the limitation of speed. Eleven applications have been made and only four have been granted. All the applications except that of Oxford were because of some special feature of the road—too narrow bridges spanning the roads or some feature of that kind. Inquiries were duly held, barristers retained by the automobile associations appeared and resisted the applications, although the local authorities knew the circumstances of the case and wanted to protect their people and help the public, and in all but four cases the applications were refused. Why does the Automobile Association object so strongly to these local applications to the Ministry? Because they know quite well that, if the local authorities have experience and see the reduction of the speed working well, as it would work well, other local authorities would also apply and you would find the limitation of speed gradually spreading over the country.
Take one instance which bears out what I have said. In London there are strict limitations of speed. Motor cars are only allowed to go at a moderate pace—in some cases quite slowly. In Middlesex there are no such limitations and the result is that for 10 accidents in Middlesex there is only one in the City of London. That is an instance of the value of fixing limits. Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is the gross incompetence of magistrates in dealing with motoring offences. Over and over again one reads instances of grossly inadequate sentences upon men guilty of the most shocking conduct. The way in which the law is broken is appalling. The last time I spoke I called attention to the case of a driver who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment at Manchester for manslaughter. He had been convicted 30 times for motoring offences, and yet he is still apparently in possession of his licence and free to continue such conduct.

Mr. COLMAN: Does the hon. Member suggest that anyone was convicted of manslaughter by a magistrate?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: It was my mistake. It was a case in the High Court. I have spoken of the way in which magistrates are apt to put the law improperly into operation. The same is true even of juries in the High Court. Judges have to accept the verdicts of juries, and juries frequently give verdicts which, in view of the evidence, are quite improper. I have here two cases which are a very good specimen of the kind of thing that is constantly going on. A Mr. Watkins, chairman of the bench at Lymm Police Court, had a butcher before him summoned for driving a motor cycle carrying three persons in addition to himself, for driving in such a position as not to have proper control of the machine, for not being insured, for not having a front light, and also for not having a rear light. The chairman said it was a mad thing to do and proceeded to fine the man 10s. for each offence, or £2 10s. in all. In another case a magistrate fined a driver £3 for driving at an excessive speed who had previously been convicted four times in three years for a similar offence. It is especially important in cases of drunkenness that proper punishment shall be inflicted. I have here a case of a man named Patrick George Donelly, who was sent to prison and who had 41 motoring offences to his credit. How long is a state of affairs which allows a man to build up 41 convictions to be tolerated? I press on my hon. Friend the appalling nature of a case like that.

Sir W. BRASS: Over what period of years?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I will give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the cutting, and he can study it at his leisure. Suppose it was 30 years or any period he likes, does he defend a man having 41 convictions?

Sir W. BRASS: It makes a little difference.

Hon. MEMBERS: What difference?

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Towards the end of the great War it was almost impossible to go into any family circle where some dear one had not been lost. It is really getting to be like that now with motoring. I have been astonished lately
to discover how frequently one meets people who have lost someone dear to them, killed or injured by motors. I am sure my right hon. Friend cannot regard that with any complacency. Surely he will agree that the time has come when the matter must be faced? I remember Lord Ponsonby saying some little time ago that he had served for 14 months in the Ministry of Transport and found there a high level of efficiency among the officials, and in the higher officers a breadth of view and a grasp of the perplexing problems that they dealt with which was unsurpassed by any other Department. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. I do not wish to attack the Ministry of Transport, but they certainly have not signalised themselves so far by showing any great grasp or ability in dealing with the problem of the enormous death rate on the roads at the present time.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I do not share all the opinions of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), but I share his indignation at the conditions which now obtain. Whatever differences there may be in this House, there ought to be, at any rate, utter discontent with conditions which make possible the figures which were given to us earlier this afternoon. I am sure that the Minister of Transport is as concerned as anybody about these figures. I hope that we shall be anxious to follow the advice he gave us some time ago, but my experience is that nothing is done in the country until there is an outburst of public indignation. It is only when people get stirred to great indignation that you get the force which makes a reform possible. I do not think that this is a case for language which has to be nicely balanced. I read a letter in the "Times" some time ago, and to-day when I knew that I was going to speak I looked it up. This is an extract from that letter, which was written by Mr. Herbert A. Powell, of Guildford, and which appeared in the "Times" of 21st November last. It will bear out what the hon. Member has just said:
May I tell my tale of a single day? On 4th November my wife and a friend, walking in a country lane, were swept away by a motor car coming from behind and grievously injured. On that day the local ambulance brigade brought into the hospital I help to administer, six victims of six
road accidents. That is the experience of one man in one day in one place, and it is duplicated all over the country. The day ended for me with a message from a friend, who added that two of his friends had on that day been killed in London by motor cars.
The letter is signed by Mr. Powell, who is evidently associated with one of our big hospitals. Something appeared in a newspaper of November last year that filled me with more horror than anything I had seen in the papers of recent years:
The death was reported yesterday of John Grae, 13, of Middleton Street, Ferniegair, near Hamilton. He was knocked down on the main Glasgow-Carlisle road near his home. He is the third child of this family to die as a result of road accidents at the same place within a year. Isabella aged 4, received fatal injuries exactly a year ago, and James, aged 7, was killed in the spring.
I do not think that anything which happened in the Great War or has happened in the history of this country has been worse than that. The inquiry that arose showed that these three little children had just as much right as any children in our homes to safety and protection, which was the main responsibility of the Government. These children happened to live in a village and the cottages are on the road. On the other side is the school, and it could not be that the necessity for taking care could not have been impressed upon these children, in view of the two earlier accidents in their home. Yet in the ordinary course of the use of the village street that happened, and it is stated that in that same village street nine other children have been killed at the same spot. One would like to think that such a thing had never happened in any other part of the United Kingdom. But it happened there, and there are other village streets like it. Everyone of us knows of village streets where the cottages are built right upon the edge of the road. We hear of children running into the streets. What do we expect children to do? What must be the plight of those villages and the terror in the lives of the mothers, because they cannot but consider themselves fortunate that they have any house to live in at all. They cannot choose to go from one house to another. These children have first claim on the consideration of this House and of the Ministry of Transport. It is a lamentable feature of the numbers
which have been given to us that the great majority of the casualties include many old people and children. There was once a prophet who drew a picture of the ideal city:
There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age, and the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.
That was not the ideal city of the motorist. We understand that in the Holy City the streets will be of pure gold. That will not suit the motorist—ribbed concrete will be asked for, probably, as a change in those conditions. I suggest that it is the first mark of a higher civilisation that the people have a care for their older people and for their children. The figures of casualties given to us just now, four-fifths of the deaths in the six months of last year among pedestrians were deaths among old people, that is adults over 50, which include myself, and those under 10.
Take the wireless. Whenever I hear broadcasting I hear what I think must strike people with some dismay. I hear about the car which inflicts damage and causes death, and there is no record of the car. Being at home last Saturday evening I turned on the wireless to hear what was said for the purpose of ascertaining any such announcements. We were told of a man, aged 70, knocked down at Peckham Rye on 27th December. He had died of the injuries received, and no one could tell the car which had knocked him down. Another instance was given the same evening of a pedal cyclist in Kingston Road, Merton, who was knocked down on 1st February and was now dead. There was no record of the vehicle that had caused his injury. Either the drivers of those cars knew or they did not know. We have the streets of this country used by drivers of cars or lorries giving us records like these. Day after day, I understand from those who hear the broadcasts, this sort of thing happens. Drivers go at such speeds that they do not know when they knock down a pedal cyclist, or when some fellow creature has been sent suddenly into eternity. That is what we are up against. Could anyone listen without dismay to the figures we have to-day? Taking the total number of years from 1926 to 1933 50,000 people were killed and 1,421,000 people
injured. That is the recorded number of those who were injured. Is there any social student or statistician who can calculate the aggregate of human sorrow and misery?
I know that the pedestrian has not very many friends. We are told very often: "The poor man hesitated." Who would not hesitate? We heard to-day from one hon. Member, who is not now in his place, that on country roads we should face the oncoming traffic. The position is not so simple on coming to a bend in the road when you are facing the traffic and when a car is coming, as they often do on country roads, at a speed of 30, 40, 50 or more than 50 miles an hour. I am not simply speaking of a corner but of a bend in the road. What is the unfortunate pedestrian to do when he is going round a bend and is confronted with traffic? The motorists give the pedestrian credit for a great deal more knowledge than he possesses. The pedestrian does not know about the control of a car. He has no opportunity of estimating the speed. Although I drive a car home when I leave this House at night and cross the road to the Embankment, I have great difficulty in estimating the speed of a car that is coming along, and if there are two cars coming my difficulty is increased. What is the old man to do, what is the child to do—the child is entitled to be on the street—when there are two converging cars?
We have heard a good many remedies mentioned to-night. I do not believe there is any one sovereign remedy, but there are a great many things that could be done. If I might make one minor suggestion, in addition to the many valuable suggestions made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and those who have spoken later, although I do not think we ought to widen the roads a great deal more for the sake of motor traffic, I think we ought to get rid of some of the deadly places on the roads, some of the awkward places where death is bound to result sooner or later. In my part of the country, where week after week we have the story of mortality on the roads, there is usually a recommendation from the coroner's jury. They always knew that it was a dangerous place where the accident had
occurred. I want the recommendation to be made not by the coroner's jury but by some one acting for the Minister of Transport.
Every one of us who uses a car has his own special knowledge of some particular roads. Some of us in the normal course of our lives may have to do a journey of, say, 20 miles or so every working day along certain roads, and we know the special dangers. I suggest that there should be collated and collected as best we can expert opinion based upon the daily experience of those who have an intimate knowledge of our roads, and in that way we might be able to lessen some of these specially dangerous places. Our real danger is in our indifference to these casualty figures. I had en experience when I was at the Ministry of Mines, in a very much smaller degree, of knowing the anxiety of the Minister himself. Our trouble there was to lessen if we could the casualties in the coal mines. Our coal mines to-day, in spite of the fact that they have always been looked upon as the most dangerous of places, are safer than many roads in this country. There are some streets and roads in this country with a greater record of accident and fatality than coal mines.
Every effort has been made in the coal mines to lessen disaster and casualty. At the Mines Department we were of course concerned with the explosion which had caused the loss of the lives of, it might be, five or 10 people—and when that happened there was a natural outpouring of public sympathy. Our main trouble was, however, in the weekly wastage, not in the number of lives lost once in six months as the result of a big calamity. We looked at the figures presented for the week showing that perhaps 20 miners had lost their lives through falls of roof or other accidents. Our concern was to try and lessen that number. I suggest here that we have lost our sense of perspective. When 200 people were killed in a railway accident in France there was an outpouring of sympathy; we are losing that number every fortnight on our roads. There is no time for pleasant homilies about courtesy on the road although I should be glad to see it, and should welcome co-operation between all users of the road. The late Lord Brentford wrote an
article which appeared in the "Spectator" on the 14th May, 1932, one of the last articles he wrote, in which he said:
I have, in one or other of my capacities, appealed over and over again to the motorist to drive with the courtesy which other drivers and pedestrians might expect, but those appeals have fallen flat. The Safety First Association has issued leaflets almost by the million, appealing to motorists pointing out the danger of careless driving—and still the toll goes on. It is true that last year the number of deaths decreased a little, but this year the figures, both the deaths and injuries, are already up by 20 per cent. Just consider what would be said if deaths from any cause were to reach the appalling total that these do—and, moreover, a total becoming more and more appalling every day. There is really no answer, and having regard to the years during which we have tried to deal with the question by courtesy and friendliness, and by seeking to make the motorist and the pedestrian more cognisant of one another's rights—a method which has completely failed—I have come to the quite definite conclusion"—
Lord Brentford himself was Home Secretary and had been associated with some of the big motor associations of this country:
that the State should intervene, that it is its duty to intervene, and that such steps should be taken as may prevent this holocaust of death and injury on our roads.
I am not concerned with a general reimposition of a speed limit, I am not sufficiently qualified to speak, but everyone who drives a car knows that on every journey it is touch and go. On every journey a man takes he is within a few inches of an accident when passing other cars.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: That is not true.

Mr. FOOT: My hon. and gallant Friend's experience may be different, but it is true, particularly at night and on a narrow road, that a slight turn of the wheel—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: If you go on the rails you may have an accident.

Mr. FOOT: I hope I am not being provocative, but if you are driving along a country road where you have just enough room for two cars to pass, and they are going at 20, 30 and more miles per hour, you are within immediate reach of danger.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: So you are in every walk of life.

Mr. FOOT: But the facts here indicate that you are not only within reach of danger but that 20 people to-morrow, who have just as much right to live as the hon. and gallant Member and myself, will be in the mortuary.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The hon. Member says that a turn of the wheel will bring disaster to life and limb. I want to point out to him that a turn of the wheel of a motor car is a very serious thing to do at any time, and, consequently, it is a very big assumption for him to assume that anybody is going to turn the wheel when driving down a lane.

Mr. FOOT: By "a turn of the wheel" I mean control by the driver.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: There is not now time to reply to the hon. Member.

Mr. FOOT: I do not know why my hon. and gallant Friend should get so heated. I have not taken more time than others.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: You have given us nice recollections of coal mines. But go on.

Mr. FOOT: The question of speed is a most essential factor in our discussion. Cars are going along the roads at the high speeds I have mentioned, and on the roads there are cattle and there are children. There is not only the difficulty of speed, but many of the cars are being created for speed. Take what appeared in the "Morning Post" some time ago, from its Motoring Correspondent:
On the road the new Bentley is a delight to handle. During the short time I had charge of the car I had no opportunity for trying maximum speeds, but I ran the car up to a speedometer 80 on third gear several times, and in top, on relatively short straight stretches, I did between 85 and 90 miles an hour. With the sligbtly lower back-axle ratio that I understand is to be offered for the English roads a top speed of between 90 and 95 miles an hour should be available, and correspondingly increased acceleration.
That is a not very unusual paragraph to appear. There was one from the "Observer" Motoring Correspondent, who said:
After the 50 miles an hour mark has been passed, the faster it goes the better
it goes. Between 60 and 70 is its pleasantest pace. The shock absorbers were obviously set for high speeds, and in consequence give rather hard riding up to 40 miles an hour.
The car evidently would not go very well at 40 miles an hour. Where are those cars to be driven? They may be very well in the hands of the motoring experts of the "Morning Post" or the "Observer," but paragraphs like these, and machines such as these, only satisfy a lust for speed, which means suffering amongst the people of the country. I ask the Minister to remember the statement of a surgeon who said the other day that if a pedestrian is knocked down by a car travelling at 10 miles an hour he gets a severe shaking, that if it is travelling at 20 miles an hour he will probably have a fractured limb, but that the flick of a mudguard from a car travelling at 40 miles an hour frequently causes instantaneous death.
There is no doubt whatever that if speed were halved fewer people would be killed. There is no doubt whatever that if speed were doubled many more people would be killed. Speed, therefore, is a factor that must enter into consideration. I want the Minister to tell us what is happening about the local speed limit. If there is a demand put up in a village where these three children lived, for the lessening of speed, it may be to 10 miles an hour in passing through a narrow street, why should not the people have that protection? Why should not a speed limit be readily given? Who are better qualified to judge than those who are face to face with the danger from motor cars, those who have children immediately under their charge?
I am sorry if I have taken undue time, but I feel very deeply on this matter because I think it concerns liberty. All the grandiloquent talk about Habeas Corpus and Magna, Charta and the Petition of Right and the rest count for nothing unless we can have the primary protection for our people, protection of life and limb. That is what liberty is for. It is because liberty in its first and essential elements is being threatened under these conditions, which no one ought to tolerate, that I ask the Minister to take a very strong line. I hope his father and his mother, did not have him christened Oliver for nothing. Action
should be taken, and taken swiftly, because every day's delay involves danger to many people. The Minister's concern in this matter is, I believe, fully equal to our own. I ask him to have regard to the rising indignation of the people of this country. I ask him to see that after their great history they shall not be "chivvied" off their own highways and made to run before the machine like a lot of rabbits. They deserve something better than that and I hope the Minister will fulfil his responsibility to them.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: The House I am sure is grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) for having given it an opportunity of discussing this subject. No one, I think, needs reminding of the gravity of the question or needs reminding that people outside these walls are becoming more and more concerned at the figures which they read from time to time about these accidents. I assure my hon. Friend who has just spoken, although I have not his gift of eloquence or his experience in its use, that I am not insensible to the feelings which he has so effectively expressed. I only wish that time had permitted him to do something which would perhaps have been more useful to me, and that instead of bringing home to me and to other hon. Members, something which I think we all recognise and a feeling which we all possess he had been able to give me the assistance which I so much need in telling me how I can deal with this question.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman will remember that last week I, with others, put certain points before him.

Mr. STANLEY: I still regret that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to help me. This seems to me, if I may say so without impertinence, a peculiarly apt subject for a Private Member's Motion. It raises no question of party or political divisions; it is a subject on which we can all contribute something from our own experience and on which we need no specialist knowledge, and it is the sort of subject in regard to which the speech of a private Member in the course of a Debate on a Motion can influence the action of the Government of the day. I was glad to notice the tone of most of the speeches. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) said what I
think is a very wise thing—that we shall never get far in dealing with the problem if we try to divide users of the road into two classes, motorists and pedestrians, and think of them as two separate sets of individuals, never interchangeable, whose interests are always diverse, whose wishes always clash, and one of which has to be favoured while the other has to be oppressed.
That might have been true in the old days, when the motor was supposed to be the privilege only of the peer or the plutocrat, and when it was the lot of the ordinary man to walk or to drive in vehicles of other kinds. Then you might have drawn some distinction of that kind. To-day, who can pretend that to the vast majority of the citizens of this country, motoring and motors have no interest or have brought no benefit? I shall quote to hon. Members some figures. The fact that in the quarter ended 30th September there were 2,297,000 motor vehicles licensed shows that their use has grown beyond that of a limited class. There were 2,947,000 driving licences isued, but more significant perhaps than any other figure is the fact that in 1932 there were 5,344,000,000 passengers travelling on motor omnibuses. Who can say, after that, that the motor does not play its part, not in the life of the small, select community who happen to be lucky enough to own cars, but in the life of the ordinary man and woman all over the country? I am sure that anyone who is carried away either by his feelings or by rhetoric to set one class of road users against another and to foster ill feeling between them is doing an ill service to that cause which we all wish to help.
To-night I have heard a great many suggestions, all of which I shall consider. I am only too glad in this problem to have the help of everyone and the advice of all. In fact, there is only one suggestion of all the many which have reached me from nearly every quarter during the last few months that I am afraid I cannot pretend to consider at all, and that is the suggestion which was conveyed to me indirectly from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), who, behind a benevolent exterior, conceals, I am afraid, a hard heart, because he is reputed to have said that the people of this country would never really rise to the gravity of this situation till the
Minister of Transport had been killed upon the road.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I reported somebody else as having said that.

Mr. STANLEY: From whatever quarter the suggestion came, my answer still remains the same. As hon. Members know, I have already announced the fact that the Government intend to introduce legislation upon this matter, and I think I can fairly claim that that shows that we are alive to the gravity of the situation and that we have not needed the pressure either of this Debate or of public opinion to take what steps we think possible to deal with it. But the House naturally will not expect me to anticipate the contents of that Bill when it is published and will, I am sure, await its publication to see those steps which we think can be taken by legislative action. I am rather glad, however, that we are able to-night to discuss this question with the legislative side omitted, because I think it helps to put the Acts of Parliament which we can pass into their proper perspective. I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) that there is no single remedy for this problem, that there is no Minister of Transport, however superhuman, and no House of Commons, however intellectual, that could hope, by a single Act of Parliament or by some simple, dramatic stroke, to abolish in an instant the terrible toll of fatalities upon the road. It is only by a persistent approach from many angles, in which Acts of Parliament play only a part, and not perhaps the most important part, that we can hope to see these figures reduced.
To-night I should like to tell the House of some of those steps, which do not need legislative sanction, which I propose to take and which I think will or may do something to help in the solution of this problem, but I want to make it quite plain to hon. Members that I do not claim any sanctity for what I am going to say. I do not claim that I have succeeded in hitting on the cure for this problem. I do not claim that some of the things I shall propose to do will not be proved by experience to be wrong and that it will not be necessary to adopt something else in their place. But I am perfectly convinced that the solution of this problem has to be progressive, that it will be largely by trial and error, and
that it is only by trying every kind of experiment and learning from them that we shall in, the end advance to a solution.
One can divide a certain part of this problem into the question of the user of the roads and the structure of the roads. With both of these I have certain proposals to make. With regard, first, to the user of the road, I have been for a long time interested, as many hon. Gentlemen must have been, in the experiment that has been taking place in Paris in authorised crossing places—what are called voies cloutées, which mark out passages for pedestrian crossing places. Certainly the figures which I have got from there are striking testimony to their success. In 1929 there were 254 of these pedestrian crossing places in use, and in that year the number killed in Paris was 328. In 1932 the number of pedestrian crossing places had risen to 8,954, and the number of deaths had fallen to 237. Impressive as these figures are, they are more impressive when one realises that during that same period from 1929 to 1932 the number of motor cars in the department of the Seine had increased by 50 per cent. The normal rate of increase therefore would have brought the deaths from 328 in 1929 to 492 in 1932, instead of which there were only 237. That is very impressive, and I do not think we can afford to close our eyes to an experiment of that kind, which seems to have been carried on with success.
I therefore decided some time ago to make an experiment on a large scale in London in the use of these pedestrian crossing places, and I have referred to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee the whole of the question to suggest to me a scheme for the siteing and allocation of pedestrian crossing places. Another suggestion, looking again to other countries—because I think we can without any derogation to our own dignity learn from experiments other countries are making—is the system they have in America of traffic lanes on the broad road. The road is divided by a line into lanes, and it is the duty of traffic always to stay in the lane nearest the side of the road on their proper side, except and only for the period when they pull out to pass a car which is going in the same direction. As soon as they pass the car, they have to go back again into the lane on the
extreme side of the road. That system prevents what we so often see on the wide roads here, namely, two or three cars trying to pass at the same time and going abreast for 100 yards or more. I intend to try the experiment of these traffic lanes on one of the new wide by-pass roads in the country. I also intend to make another experiment again upon these wide roads, because I think it is on this type of road that a great many of the casualties, especially the casualties from excessive speed, occur. I intend to try the experiment of converting them into dual-track roads, instead of merely having islands down the middle—of having a complete physical barrier down the middle of the road to make the traffic keep to one way.
Finally, in this connection of the users of the road, there is a possibility of introducing special cycling tracks. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion pleaded for the cycling track as if it were for the benefit of what he called "the wretched cyclist." It was obviously not within his knowledge that whenever cycling tracks have been suggested it has always been the association representing "the wretched cyclist" which has protested most bitterly against them, and for reasons which are not unsubstantial. But I am considering whether it might not be advisable to provide, for the experimental use of cyclists themselves, to let them see how they like it, a cycling track along one of the roads near London, not with the intention of forcing them to use it, but with the possibility that if they become familiar with its use their opinion of its utility may be changed.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to confine those experiments to the vicinity of London, or to give some of the counties an opportunity of sharing in them?

Mr. STANLEY: I have not yet decided where they are to be, but my hon. Friend will realise that some of these experiments will cost money, and therefore the districts may not be so anxious to have the privilege of engaging in them. Coming to the structure of roads, the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, and who is not now in his place, said that I had a glorious opportunity of replanning the roads. Apparently that was to be regarded as a step towards security. He did not explain to the House exactly
what he meant by this great replanning of the roads. I quite agree there is a great deal that we can do to the roads to make them more secure, but if he means that we are to make Kingston by-passes and Great West roads all over the country, I am not so certain that it is really going to lead to the security of the roads. That has not been the experience with the great open spaces of roads which have been built in the past. But there are certain directions in which road construction certainly plays its part in this question of road accidents, and I have drafted a Circular to the road authorities which will be in their hands in a few days. The first point I deal with is the question, which has been raised by several hon. Members, of the camber of the roads and their super-elevation at bends. I agree that in the past we have not done enough in these matters, and in this Circular I propose that future grants to local authorities for the re-surfacing of roads will be contingent on this alteration of the camber and their super-elevation wherever that is practicable.
Then there is the question of the surface of the roads. In 1929 my Department sent out a Circular dealing specially with slippery surfaces and non-skid materials, and I think hon. Members will agree that since that time there has been a very considerable improvement in the surface of the roads. It is a matter, of course, that takes time, for it is only as the road falls due for re-surfacing that it is possible to make use of the newer materials. But I do again in this Circular call the attention of the highway authorities, and especially of highway authorities in urban areas, to the desirability of using this rougher surfacing for the roads. We are continually experimenting, but we cannot yet claim that we have attained the perfect non-skid surface; nevertheless, we have certainly made a considerable progress, and I am urging the local authorities to take every opportunity of making use of our investigations and of the greater knowledge that we have gained.
There are two other points connected with road surface which are of importance. The first is that wherever possible local authorities should use a light-coloured surface. That would undoubtedly make for safety. The second is the lack
of uniformity of surface on roads which pass through the areas of different local authorities, and in this Circular I am impressing upon authorities who administer adjoining areas through which the same road passes the necessity of co-operation in order to secure uniformity of surface throughout its length.
Then there is the question of footpaths. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that I have drawn the special attention of local authorities to the need for care in choosing the material of which the footpath is constructed. It is quite true, as was pointed out, that more pedestrians are killed walking along a road where there is actually a footpath available than where there is no footpath at all. Out of our own experience we all know that the number of accidents where pedestrians do not use the path provided for them is to a large extent due to the surface. In this Circular I ask local authorities to pay particular attention to that fact and see that the surface of the footpath is not inferior to the surface of the highway.
I am afraid that little time is left, so I shall have to miss some of the other points in this circular, which, however, will be available for hon. Members in a few days. There is also the question of condition of vehicles. It is true that the investigations into fatal accidents show that only a small proportion of them are due to the condition of vehicles, but nevertheless I think that some improvements could be made, and I am glad to see that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have shown the greatest willingness to help in this matter; in fact, they anticipated my desire and set up a committee of their own to examine this question, and I have referred to them several suggestions which I had to make with regard to the construction of cars.
There remains just one point, and that is the question of propaganda. I would say to the hon. Member for Bodmin that I do not suggest that it is not necessary to take steps both by legislation and by regulation, but to dismiss, as he did, propaganda as unimportant and useless is a profound mistake. Whatever Acts of Parliament we pass, whatever regulations we make, however we improve the roads, however much money we spend, it will still be the human
element which in the long run either causes the accidents or avoids them, and the only way I know of reaching the human element is by means of propaganda and the use of all those modern means by which we can influence public opinion. As I have already told the House, I have made from the Road Fund, as I am entitled to do under the Act of 1930, a grant of £5,000 to the Safety First Association for a special campaign which they are going to carry on during this summer. The objects to which I am particularly asking them to devote this money are exactly that type of local conference and propaganda which one hon. Member suggested. I have been in touch with the film industry, who have promised to give me every assistance in their power. I have also received promises from some of the most prominent racing motorists that they will assist me in the production of these films. Both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club are co-operating with me in suggesting the lessons which we ought to keep before the public.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What about the Pedestrians Association?

Mr. STANLEY: Probably the motoring organisations will be able to give more specialised information as to how to drive or not to drive a motorcar. Normally, the spokesman of the pedestrians would not give very sound technical advice upon that matter.

Mr. FOOT: He might suggest how to keep out of the way.

Mr. STANLEY: With regard to the Press, I should like to acknowledge the great assistance I have already received from them, from the time when this fatal accident survey was first published. They threw open their columns to discussion, and invited correspondence and suggestions from their readers. From a mass of suggestions of that kind, many, of course, might be valueless, but a good deal of value and help can be gained in preparing proposals. Nearer the time—from my point of view the time for propaganda ought to be the start of the motoring season—I intend to approach the Press again, and to ask them to assist me during the period. Finally, the British Broadcasting Corporation have promised me their most willing co-operation
in trying to reach the public mind through the wireless.
There is only one other point I want to stress in the Debate. I am afraid that it has been quite impossible for me to reply to the many suggestions, some important and some minor but all useful, which have been made by hon. Members. I can assure them that those suggestions will receive my fullest attention, and, while my proposals are in a sufficiently fluid state, I will endeavour to take advantage of their advice.
The only caution I must utter is in regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Lichfield. I do not think it would be fair that his remarks should go uncontradicted. He took this Preliminary Report on Fatal Road Accidents and spoke of it as being a dishonest production. He said that it was misleading.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I quoted the Pedestrians' Association as saying that it was seriously misleading.

Mr. STANLEY: He said that it was seriously misleading, and in support of that he quoted page 10, in regard to "excessive speed," etc. What he did not go on to say was that the next paragraph says:
Reference has already been made in connection with Tables XIII (A) and (B) to the doubts attaching to estimates of speed.
On a previous page I set out quite clearly, because I wanted there to be no doubt about this matter:
It is notoriously difficult for the police to obtain reliable evidence as to the speed at which a vehicle involved in an accident was travelling immediately beforehand.
And:
Such a result is alone sufficient to indicate the greatest need for caution in interpreting these figures.
I only wanted to make that point clear because I do not want the House to have what I think is a definite misleading set of figures without attaching a note of warning to them.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: They have misled the country.

Mr. STANLEY: They could only have misled that part of the country which quoted these figures and has criticised the Report without having read it. I feel that, as a result of this Debate, the House is determined to grapple with this
problem, and that hon. Members are desirous of solving it. They realise that there is not a single and dramatic way of doing it, and they are prepared to support any way whether by legislation, regulation or appeal to the public, to do something to remove this hideous and growing blight upon our national life.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House views with grave concern the serious increase in the number of road accidents during the past year, and is of opinion that most active steps should be taken which would conduce to greater safety for all users of the road.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

MONETARY POLICY.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Mr. DAVID MASON: We have had a most interesting and valuable Debate, and I am sorry to trespass on the patience of hon. Members in order to raise a question which this occasion affords the only opportunity of raising. To-day I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the following effect:
Whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee, with wide powers of reference, for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations on monetary policy?
I received, through the courtesy of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the following reply:
In the judgment of my right hon. Friend, no useful purpose would be served by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.
I should like to offer some precedent for the procedure I suggested. This House, after the Napoleonic Wars, when we were passing through a somewhat similar experience to that of to-day, appointed committees for the purpose of investigating the financial situation at that time. We all remember the classic case of the Bullion Committee of 1810, on whose valuable report Sir Robert Peel based his policy which led up to the restoration of specie payments in 1821. In connection with so complicated a subject as this, on which there are hardly to be
found, whether in this House or outside, two men of similar opinion, there can be no question as to the necessity for a committee. I say this, not in any sense as an attack on the Government, but with a view to the investigation of such questions. The committee should have the widest possible powers of reference, so that witnesses may be called, just as bankers were called 100 years ago, and the famous report of 1810 was produced, which, after 100 years, still remains a classic and one of the most valuable treatises in existence on sound financial policy. It has never been refuted; it is unanswerable. I should like to say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the Financial Secretary, who, I understand, has given up an evening engagement to be present here. I would ask him to convey to the Government the advisability of reconsidering the question which addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day.
Let me give a foreign example. In 1925, France was passing through a very exciting time. The franc was fluctuating, they were changing their Finance Minister nearly every week, and were at a loss as to what course they should pursue to arrive at some solution of the extraordinary state of financial chaos and confusion that existed in that country at the time. I sent certain contributions to the Press and addressed M. Herriot, through a mutual friend, suggesting the appointment of a financial commission. In 1926 I visited Paris and, through the courtesy of our Ambassador, was put into communication with the Governor of the Bank of France and other bankers, and I pressed on them the appointment of a commission of commerce. I met Monsieur Berthelot at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and he invited me to submit a memorandum on French finance to be brought before his colleagues. That I did, and I emphasised that it seemed to me that only through the appointment of a committee of expert bankers would a solution of the existing confusion be arrived at. They accepted my suggestion, and a committee of leading bankers was appointed, which went very minutely into the whole financial state of France, with the result that the Government accepted their report, the franc was stabilised, and a solution was arrived at. I hope I have said enough for the Government to reconsider their decision. I
believe that a committee of all parties, composed of people who have made a study of this, in conjunction perhaps with some of the leading bankers outside, would be able to draw up a report. I do not want to obtrude my own views on the House. We may differ in our views on monetary policy but I believe in all parties we are agreed as to the necessity and value of an inquiry. As a result, for example, of the Bullion Committee of 1810 it was shown that the price of gold bullion was not due so much to an increase in the value of gold as to a fall in the value of paper, and that is what we are suffering from to-day. Even now bankers, in their annual speeches, are at a loss to know what policy to pursue. The Government have not given us any indication of their policy, though they have been pressed on many occasions. I hope they will accept my suggestion in the spirit in which I submit it and I ask them to reconsider the question.

11.10 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's observations in the spirit in which he makes them, and although he was kind enough to say that it was at some inconvenience that I came here to answer them, I can assure him that whenever he thinks that the public interest is involved, I will be present as it is my duty to be. The story which the hon. Gentleman unfolds loses none of its force by repetition. His Majesty's Government are well acquainted with the case which the hon. Gentleman desires to present. He seeks to avail himself this evening of the opportunity which the Adjournment affords to propose an investigation into our monetary policy, with a view to making certain suggestions of policy.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that our monetary policy may legitimately be divided into two provinces, the domestic and the international. Our policy in the domestic province has been to provide industry with cheap and abundant money, and I notice that there was no complaint in the speech of the hon. Member of that policy. Indeed, it has resulted in providing industry with the means of that revival which is now becoming apparent.

Mr. MASON: The Government, surely, do not provide the cheap money. The cheap money is largely the result of the contraction of trade throughout the world.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is not a judicial statement of the case. The hon. Member is well aware of the mechanism by which money is provided in a modern State. I was observing that no criticism had fallen from the hon. Gentleman of that policy of cheap money which I have described as the domestic policy of His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member is aware that as a result of that policy the burdens of the State and industry have been lightened. When we come to the international policy, however, we are in a province in which we do not exercise exclusive control and the mere appointment of a Committee here could hardly be expected to influence the course of policy in other countries. The restoration of a satisfactory international standard which shall be free from the factors which caused the breakdown of the last international standard must be dependent upon conditions which I need not now specify, but which are certainly not present at the moment.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on many occasions laid down with the utmost clarity of language the conditions precedent to a restoration of an international standard. In the meantime we are pursuing, in conjunction with those who are in agreement with us, the policy explained in detail in the Declaration signed by the members of the British Empire Delegations at the London Conference. All those parts of the British Empire which have put that Declaration into operation are now experiencing the benefits of a revival of trade. His Majesty's Government fail to see how the appointment of a further committee at this moment could achieve any good purpose whatever. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the fact that the Bullion Committee which was appointed in 1810 had no effect upon the British Government's policy until 1821. Indeed, its report was rejected by the House of Commons. I am quite ready to acknowledge the debt, if it be within my duty to do so, that the Government of France may owe to the hon. Gentleman for the advice which he tendered. I am quite ready also to acknowledge that His Majesty's Government is conscious
of being constantly reminded by the hon. Gentleman of the policy which we should pursue, but I hope that he will agree that in the present unsettled and fluctuating conditions the appointment of a committee would serve no practical end. If a committee at any time could serve a useful purpose this is not the moment and this is not the occasion on which it should be established. I do not wish in the least to disparage the views held most sincerely by the hon. Member, and which have been so persistently and so lucidly advocated upon all occasions.
We know what he desires, that the committee, if established, should report. He will not be satisfied with the appointment of a committee unless it report in the sense which he believes to be the right one. I am sure that the hon. Member has only suggested the appointment of a committee in order to remind us once more that nothing is gold that does not glitter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.